Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Consumer Credit Licensing

Mr. Newton: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will make a statement on progress in the issue of licences under the Consumer Credit Act.

The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): The Act imposes on the Director General of Fair Trading the duty of administering the licensing system. He has informed me that, up to 20th May, some 4,800 applications have been received—a sizeable proportion within the last few days—and 216 licences have been issued.

Mr. Newton: Can the hon. Gentleman say what proportion this represents of the people who needed to apply by the

end of this month? Does he agree that, if the number is as small as some Press reports have suggested, an entirely chaotic situation could arise if a large number of arrangements become unenforceable?

Mr. Fraser: The Director General estimated that about 17,000 applications ought to be received on the first licensing round. These relate to such things as credit reference, debt counselling and debt collection, and the effect of non-licensing would not be to invalidate agreements.

Mr. McCrindle: Has it been decided whether it would be possible to arrange for block grant licences for such people as the Building Societies Association, for example, or the Corporation of Insurance Brokers, or will it be necessary for each building society and each insurance broker to have separate licences?

Mr. Fraser: I understand that first building society mortgages are outside the licensing arrangements. As to the professions, three group licences have been issued so far, to solictors in England and Wales and to those in Scotland and Northern Ireland. As I do not want to prejudge the matter, all I would say is that it is open to other professional associations to discuss with the Director General the possibility of obtaining group licences.

Price Code

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer


Protection what new plans she has to revise the Price Code.

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she proposes to amend the Price Code.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she will now take steps to relax the control of prices.

Mr. MacGregor: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she will make a statement on progress on revisions of the Price Code following the completion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's negotiations on pay policy.

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will make a statement on the future of the Price Code.

The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection and Paymaster-General (Mrs. Shirley Williams): The Government's proposals will be set out in detail in a consultative document to be published next month. Profit and cost controls will be retained. Changes will be made, particularly to encourage investment and jobs.

Mr. Renton: While waiting for the Green Paper, can the right hon. Lady say how she sees the restructured Price Code leading to manufacturers increasing their capital investment in the United Kingdom? Is it not more likely that capital investment will still be held up—in fact, strangled—to judge by the web of controls and by further TUC demands for smaller profit margins?

Mrs. Williams: With regard to the first part of the question, it is not a Green Paper that will be produced but a consultative document—under the terms of the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972 that is what is required—and it will be debated in the House of Commons.
With regard to the second part of the question, it is this Government who introduced investment relief. I have every reason to believe that that has been much appreciated by industry, and there is now

a markedly improved desire to increase investment in domestic industry in this country.

Mr. Rooker: Does my right hon. Friend accept that any amendment to the Price Code which will allow price rises to be greater next time round than they were this time and which are announced after the TUC meeting on 16th June will be seen to undermine the policy for the vast majority of workers, who will consider that their leaders have been sold down the river by the Government?

Mrs. Williams: No. Sir. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the discussions between the Government and other organisations about the Price Code include the TUC—very much so—which is as concerned as we are about the effects on investment and jobs where the Price Code can be pointed to. Therefore, what we have to do is to walk what may be a difficult line between the maximum restriction and unnecessary increases in prices and the necessary measures that have to be taken to encourage investment and new jobs.

Mr. Marten: Does the right hon. Lady realise that the Government have to walk the plank? Is it not true that if more profitability were allowed for reinvestment this would be in the self-interest of the employees, because those concerned would be able to reinvest more in plant and equipment and there would be more jobs? Secondly, will the £5 million limit be raised, because it was fixed before a lot of this inflation took place?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman, with his usual subtlety, replaced my tightrope with his plank, but I insist on replacing his plank with a tightrope since a tightrope has another end to it, whereas a plank ends in the sea. Having said that, I go on to say that there are certain sectors where the return at present is below the cost of borrowing money to invest. It is that kind of thing to which we are turning our minds, which I am sure the entire House will, on consideration, recognise is not in the national interest or in the interests of full employment.

Mr. Madden: Despite the carefully orchestrated campaign of big business to dismantle all the arrangements in the Price Code, will my right hon. Friend


give an assurance that there will be safeguards to ensure that retained profits are channelled into investment, particularly in manufacturing industry? Will she also understand that price controls hold the only hope there is of getting the acceptance of working people for incomes policies?

Mrs. Williams: I hope my hon. Friend will give us a little more credit than that suggests. The investment relief is directly tied to relief in domestic manufacturing industry and in commercial vehicles. It is indeed our intention that any improvement in investment shall be directed towards the domestic economy and not dissipated in either investment in property or investment abroad.

Mr. MacGregor: Can the Secretary of State say whether it is also her intention to amend the code in order to remove the present disincentives to increased efficiency and productivity, and, if so, what form her proposals will take?

Mrs. Williams: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that both these matters are under consideration, but I cannot go further than that for the obvious reason that the discussions on this entire subject have only just begun.

Mr. Heffer: Although we accept that her intentions are good, can my right hon. Friend say what actual guarantees will come from the Government to ensure that such increases in prices, leading to increased profits, will be used for the necessary investment which is required?

Mrs. Williams: Yes, I will indeed. In the first year of the investment relief—1975—there was approximately £380 million-worth of relief which was associated with £1,955 million-worth of investment. All this was closely monitored by the Price Commission. The commission has informed me that it is satisfied that the investment relief went directly on investment which benefited the domestic economy, in particular manufacturing. That is indeed precisely in line with the policies of the Government and the Labour Party.

Mr. Neubert: Does not the Minister realise that British industry has been subjected to price control in one form or another for the last five years while wage costs have shot ahead? How will these

meagre proposals redress that damaging imbalance?

Mrs. Williams: They will do so along the lines I have indicated. The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) will be fair-minded enough to agree that it is important to assure those who are being asked to engage in a very harsh form of incomes restraint that there will not be unnecessary increases in prices and that where prices are increased it will be in order to benefit investment and jobs.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only last week in the Financial Times there was evidence of massive increases in profits? To the ordinary housewife there does not seem to be any dramatic reduction, or indeed holding, of prices. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that, when she receives supplications from the Conservative Party to allow prices to rise, official Shadow spokesmen tell us that she is pretty frightful to allow prices to rise and that this is a bad thing? My right hon. Friend ought not to take too much notice of this but should take heed instead of the TUC's request to hold prices as much as she can.

Mrs. Williams: I am well aware of the fact that, regardless of almost anything I do on prices, it will be wrong as far as the Opposition are concerned, but that is the nature of their particularly destructive contribution to the policy. With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, let me say right away that the return on capital in real terms, allowing for inflation, has fallen from approximately 11 per cent. 10 years ago to 7 per cent. in 1970 and to 4 per cent. in 1974. I do not think it is unreasonable to say that, whatever else has benefited over the last couple of years, it has not primarily been profits.

Mr. Giles Shaw: While congratulating the right hon. Lady in setting out with vigour on the tightrope or the plank, may I ask whether she can be a little more encouraging to those who believe that the restrictions of the Price Code have been the major disincentive to the economy at the present time? Would she not agree that to remove the Price Code altogether would increase the Retail Price Index by only something like 1 per cent. or less? Would she not agree


that in the present economic climate—I stress this—this would do more for jobs and investment than the tinkering with the code which she is proposing?

Mrs. Williams: I think the hon. Gentleman would also agree that one of the major factors in returning confidence has been the slowing down of the rate of inflation. I do not think it is reasonable to suggest that there can be a very tight control over incomes without any form of control over prices. Having said that, I believe that the TUC will fully accept that, where relaxations in prices are directly related to domestic investment improvements—they frankly were not between 1972 and 1974—there is a consensus for making these changes.

Price Check Scheme

Mr. Cartwright: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will make a statement about the operation of the Price Check Scheme.

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what proportion of total family expenditure is currently covered by the Price Check Scheme.

Mr. Steen: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she plans to include any additional commodities in the Price Check Scheme.

Mr. Giles Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection how many reports the Price Commission has made to her Department in exercise of its responsibility for monitoring the Price Check Scheme; and what was the substance of those reports.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The Price Commission has reported encouragingly on the prices of items in the Price Check Scheme, which is now half way through its six-month life. Of 43 groups of products covered by the scheme, the prices of four had increased, but less than 5 per cent.; 33 had remained stable within half of 1 per cent.; six had actually fallen during the two months of the scheme. This picture is confirmed by information gathered from leading retailers by the Retail Consortium.
I have agreed to the withdrawal of car batteries from the scheme, under the agreed withdrawal clause, because of a sharper than expected increase in the price of imported lead. This makes little difference to the coverage of the scheme, which amounts to between 15 and 20 per cent. of consumers' expenditure. In addition, many retailers have added items of their own choice to the scheme, such as additional lines of clothing, footwear and food.

Mr. Cartwright: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging report. However, does she not accept that many housewives simply do nut understand what the red Price Check triangle means, and that by and large retailers have not done enough to ensure that their staff can explain the scheme to the public? In any future development of voluntary price restraint, will she bear in mind the paramount importance of ensuring that the buying public understand what it is all about?

Mrs. Williams: I accept that in some shops there is no indication of precisely what lines and ranges the scheme covers, although my Department has made every possible attempt to persuade the trade associations of the importance of this. I think that my hon. Friend will have seen considerable improvements in the past few weeks. I would stress that, with anything like the Price Check Scheme, with every month that passes the scheme becomes more valuable to the housewife, because it guarantees stability of prices.

Mr. Shaw: Would the Secretary of State agree that, with every month that passes, it becomes more confusing to the housewife? Is it not a fact that, with the withdrawals of beer, cigarettes and bread from the scheme, it does not really cover, as was originally intended, the full 20 per cent. of goods, but that the rules have been altered in such a way that the right hon. Lady can claim that it does? Is it not a fact that the scheme covers only about half of what was originally intended? If it is half a glass of rather indifferent wine, does she not agree that there is naught but the lees to brag of?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman always tries to be fair, so I think he will agree that there was no attempt by


me to prevent the brewers from withdrawing from the scheme and that, as a result of the Budget, requests came from the brewers to remain within the scheme because, they said, there would have to be increases in their prices, apart from tax, otherwise. It was in that light that we kept them in the scheme, excepting tax, which was understood by them. The same is true of cigarettes. It has been made quite clear by the Brewers Society that it restricted its prices more than it would have done if the scheme did not exist and that the increases will be due to the tax and not to increases on their own part.

Mr. Tom King: Has the Secretary of State any evidence that the changes and the variation of prices which she has announced would not have happened without the Price Check Scheme? Did these manufacturers whose prices have stabilised give any indication of increases in their prices if there had been no Price Check Scheme? The sum of £1 million has been spent on this very expensive scheme. Has the Secretary of State any evidence to show that it is actually contributing one jot to the control of prices?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening, because I gave the example of the Brewers Society, which shows exactly what he has asked me. The CBI and the Retail Consortium have both indicated that firms have come within the scheme as a result of anticipating falls in labour costs which would not have occurred had there not been such a scheme. I think that the hon. Gentleman should accept both the CBI's and the Retail Consortium's willingness to cooperate rather than make the remarks he has just made.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I think that we all realise that, if there is to be a restraint in incomes, we must tackle the problem of inflation and that this scheme has obviously worked. Will my right hon. Friend therefore continue to strengthen the scheme in the months and years ahead and reject the sabotage which the Opposition attempted when it was introduced?

Mrs. Williams: A situation in which 39 out of 43 items have either fallen in price or increased in price by less than ½per cent. is one which my hon. Friends

would do well to applaud and, indeed, to publicise.

Public Corporations (Pricing)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if relaxation of the provisions of the Price Code will apply to the pricing policies of public corporations.

Mr. John Fraser: I would ask my hon. Friend to await the publication of the consultative document on the Price Code.

Mr. Hooley: But is my hon. Friend aware that the irresponsible behaviour of the management of public corporations in slamming on price increase after price increase without regard to the social or commercial consequences is now producing a backlash from the unions whose members are employed by those corporations as well as from consumers? Is he aware that the British Steel Corporation in two months is proposing an increase of 35 per cent. on the price of mild steel, with all the consequences for domestic apparatus which that will produce? What action will his Department take about the public corporations instead of simply shuffling off responsibility on to other Government Departments?

Mr. Fraser: First, I cannot accept all the premises of my hon. Friend's question. It is true that since 1974 the nationalised industries have had to absorb large increases in costs, but there is every reason now to expect that the industries' prices will moderate. I am afraid that I cannot anticipate the results of discussions over the Price Code. I must ask my hon. Friend to be patient on these matters.

Mr. Marten: On the Price Code, could the Minister answer the question, which I think his right hon. Friend forgot to answer, of whether the £5 million turnover threshold will be raised? Are the Government considering raising it in the paper which is to be issued?

Mr. Fraser: Those limits are under discussion at the moment.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is hardly fair to blame his Department for the problem of public corporation price increases but that the fact that Jack Jones has raised this matter in the recent discussions with the Government is nevertheless of great


importance? Is he aware that all of us on this side are looking for more steps to be taken towards the effective control of electricity and gas prices in particular in the present discussions with the trade union movement?

Mr. Fraser: I do not, as my hon. Friend says, accept the blame, but I do say that my Department has a responsibility to look at the consumer interest side of these matters. Certainly, one is prepared to consider such things as the recommendations of the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries and other publications which will be available soon about the cost of energy for poor consumers.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is it not a fact that if wage increases had not been so phenomenal in 1974 we should not now face the kind of gas and electricity price increases that we do face?

Mr. Fraser: The increases in the price of energy have emanated from the Middle East as well as from pay settlements.

Mr. Cryer: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the gas and electricity boards could follow the example of British Rail and freeze their prices for a year? That would certainly help people on lower incomes. Should not British Rail be congratulated on a determined attempt to retain passenger and freight services by freezing its prices?

Mr. Fraser: The price of gas has been included in the Price Check Scheme and is being held down for six months in that respect.

Mr. Mike Thomas: It will go up in the winter.

Mr. Fraser: The price of electricity for low-income families is now under urgent consideration.

Sherry and Wine

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will seek to make it a legal obligation to show quantity marking on bottles of sherry and other fortified wines.

The Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Robert Maclennan): My right hon. Friend intends to do so as soon as we change

over in this country from the "minimum" contents system to the "average" system.

Mr. Watkins: I am grateful for that information. Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a growing practice of reducing both the amount in the bottle and the alcoholic content? Do not these practices constitute disguised price increases from which the disguises ought to be removed?

Mr. Maclennan: There is a number of problems related to that matter which are being considered by the Working Party on Metrological Systems Control which will be reporting shortly.

Garages (Tyre Pressure Gauges)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what action she is taking in the interests of consumers to ensure the accuracy of tyre pressure gauges provided by garages for the use of motorists.

Mr. John Fraser: My Department is developing proposals for a tyre pressure gauge testing scheme which can be nationally recognised and will take advantage of the voluntary testing service already offered by many local weights and measures authorities. We have no powers to deal with this under existing legislation.

Mr. Lipton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the London borough of Lambeth recently conducted a test which showed that a large proportion of these tyre gauges were wildly inaccurate and that, therefore, it is fair to assume that thousands of motorists must be driving around with incorrect tyre inflation, which must be a contributory cause of accidents?

Mr. Fraser: I am aware of the Lambeth research, which has been extremely useful. The advice which has to be offered to motorists is that they should not only concern themselves about the pressure of inflation but should keep an exact balance between left and right.

Retail Price Index

Mr. Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what has been the increase in the Retail Price Index over the past 12 months to date.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is the latest rise in the Retail Price Index; and if she will make causes of inflation instead of simply a statement.

Mr. Mike Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is the latest Government estimate of the current rate of inflation.

Mr. Moonman: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is her estimate of the current rate of inflation.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Over the 12 months to April 1976, the Retail Price Index increased by 18·9 per cent.

Mr. Rathbone: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there is a certain superficial attraction in that answer but that many of the steps taken or not taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer have led to a devaluation of the pound which will inevitably contribute dramatically to increased retail prices in the coming year? Has she instituted conversations with her right hon. Friend to help upvalue the pound and to take any necessary steps to do so?

Mrs. Williams: I do not deny that the recent unexpectedly sharp decline in the exchange rate may mean some delay in the achievement of the single-figure target that the Government have set for the winter of this year. Indeed, I said as much in the last Parliamentary Questions that I answered, in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim):
I do not deny…that the decline in the value of the pound in recent months will rather slow down the achievement of the target."—[Official Report, 12th April 1976; Vol. 909, c. 887–8.]
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will appreciate that there is now a widely-held view, especially in some parts of the OECD, that the decline in sterling has been exaggerated and that no action which has been taken in our economy would justify the way in which it has slipped in the past few weeks.

Mr. Canavan: Does not the fact that prices are still rising considerably faster

than wages disprove the theory that wage increases are the major cause of price inflation? What steps are the Government taking to identify and attack other expecting workers to make all the sacrifices?

Mrs. Williams: Although it is true that in some past months prices have run ahead of earnings, my hon. Friend will be glad to know that in April the paths crossed the other way and earnings are now ahead of prices. But one factor over which none of us has any direct control is what is happening to import prices. There is no doubt that there is a hardening of raw material and food prices in the rest of the world because of the greater recovery of the world economy.

Mr. Newton: Would the right hon. Lady agree that these protestations that the pound has fallen too far simply show how little confidence there is abroad in this Administration? What estimate has she made of the effect on the Retail Price Index of the fall this year in the value of the pound?

Mrs. Williams: The fall in the value of the pound over the last month would add about two and a half points to the Retail Price Index. The hon. Gentleman appears to be rather less devoted to this country than the Deputy-Chairman of the German Bundesbank, who took the view that the pound was heavily undervalued.

Mr. Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend ignore the gloating by Conservative Members at the fall in the exchange rate and tell the workers why she is currently negotiating for a productivity criterion to be extended to the Price Code, whereas productivity criteria are excluded from pay settlements?

Mrs. Williams: I do not think that my hon. Friend has got it quite right. At present, any increase in the volume and any fall in the unit costs of industry is penalised, in the sense that it has to be directly reflected in prices. We are seeking to give industry some incentive to improve the turnover and reduce the margin, which in the current Price Code is a very difficult thing to do. But I appreciate that such incentives must go across the board.

Mr. Rathbone: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye again. May I ask the right hon. Lady once more what conversations she has instituted with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make him take steps to reduce Government borrowing and Government expenditure so that the fall in the value of the pound is not reflected in an addition of two and a half points to the Retail Price Index next year?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman has again made the point which is frequently made by the Opposition: they want an immediate cut this year in public expenditure regardless of the effect on employment. That is not the view of the Government or of the Trades Union Congress.

Mr. Moonman: While appreciating the work done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, may I ask my right hon. Friend to comment on the feasibility of keeping to the Chancellor's targets and to say whether they are likely to be reached within the time scale envisaged? To many of us, that is the most critical thing of all.

Mrs. Williams: It is very critical. As I said to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), we expect there to be a slippage of about two months in achieving our earlier target owing to the unexpectedly sharp decline in the exchange rate, but it is possible that the exchange rate will recover when the news about the levels of inflation, which are beginning to decline, gets across.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Will the right hon. Lady confirm or deny that prices have risen by 50·9 per cent. since February 1974, when the Government came to power, that this is a horrifying indictment of the Government's record on prices, and that, as this is largely a result of a combination of profligacy on the part of the Government and past excesses on the part of certain trade unionists, a certain amount of humility and repentance rather than arrogant boasting would be more appropriate? Will she also confirm that the fall in the value of the pound is a vote of no confidence not in this country but in the Government's policies?

Mrs. Williams: We have now had the hon. Lady's much-heralded attack.
Although she has anticipated a later Question tabled by one of her hon. Friends, I confirm that there has been an increase of 50·9 per cent. in the past two years. However, I remind her—she seems liable to forget this—that the import index increased by 64 per cent. between the second quarter of 1973 and the second quarter of 1974. The Conservative Party, in Opposition, conveniently forgets that. An estimated increase of 8 per cent. in earnings flowed from the triggering of thresholds in May 1974—the policy of the Conservative Administration.
It is not helpful to the hon. Lady to cast doubt on the fact that in the past year there has been a halving of the rate of inflation, a fact which she perpetually denies. If she will not take it from me, will she take it from the leader in the Financial Times today, which states:
The domestic inflation rate which is now down to about 13½ per cent…

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not quoting from a newspaper, is she?

Mrs. Williams: I am referring to a leader in the Financial Times today, Mr. Speaker, which indicated that, in that newspaper's view, the current inflation rate, correctly estimated, was down to 131½per cent. compared with 35 per cent. in the first half of 1975. It serves nobody's interests, including the interests of this country, continually to underestimate the Government's massive achievement in fighting inflation.

Dudley Consumer Advice Centre

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when she intends to pay another visit to the Dudley Consumer Advice Centre.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Lady add a further statistic to the statistic which she has given from a newspaper from which she may or may not have been quoting? As one of the few economically-informed members of the Cabinet, will she say precisely what proportion of the fall from 35 per cent. to 13½ per cent. was, in her opinion, due to price control and the Price Code?

Mrs. Williams: It would be difficult to estimate exactly how much was due to that. I would certainly give the major credit to the wages agreement reached in August 1975.

Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that devaluation means that wage earners must face increased costs? Does she agree that every Labour Government face the crisis of capitalism and that devaluation and the movement of sterling are an indictment of capitalism and the free market in currency? Is it not time that the Government met this challenge with tighter exchange control?

Mrs. Williams: I agree with my hon. Friend that if the patriotism shown by the great majority of our people was shown by some of those who indulge in currency speculation we should be even further on the way to recovery than we are.

Mr. Gow: Does not the right hon. Lady agree that the continuing decline in the external value of the pound will go on unless and until the public sector borrowing requirement is cut dramatically?

Mrs. Williams: No, I do not think so. I have noticed that there is in the leading articles of many of the most responsible newspapers abroad, including the New York Times, a recognition of the extent of the achievement of the people of this country in accepting a degree of restraint on incomes which was regarded as unprecedented and, indeed, impossible of achievement only a year ago.

Mr. Molloy: Should my right hon. Friend go to Dudley again, will she point out that what is happening in the House of Commons is that Tory Members are running out of their reserves of chagrin because of the success of the Government and that nobody should take too much notice of what they say because they do not really count?

Mrs. Williams: When I next go to Dudley, it would give me more than satisfaction to point out. if given the opportunity, that hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies of the Opposition continually attack the Government's prices policy but oppose food subsidies, rent subsidies and the Price Check Scheme, that they appear to want the Price Code to be abolished,

and that it would be nice to get something positive from them.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Will the Secretary of State give an explanation of her remark to an elderly lady on the occasion of her visit to Dudley, just before being shouted down by an angry crowd of shoppers, that if we kept going at the present rate we could get prices down to the levels which the lady knew when she was a young woman, which would signify a rate of inflation of about 1 per cent. a year? Will the right hon. Lady say when she expects that forecast to materialise? Or is this another Labour Party election promise, or is she now given to wild and irresponsible forecasts—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions are getting very long again.

Mrs. Williams: What the hon. Lady says is a perfectly fair assessment of the way in which the programme was edited. I should be happy to send her a transcript of what was said at length, which would indicate that what I was talking about was the rate of increase per year. I said that I hoped that over a period—which might be a long period—we would get down to the rates of increase which we had seen in the past.

Food Index

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection by how much the food index has increased over the past 12 months to date inclusive of seasonal foods; and by how much it has increased over the past three months on the same basis.

Mr. Maclennan: The food index, which includes seasonal food, increased by 19–9 per cent. between 15th April 1975 and 13th April 1976 and by 5·7 per cent. between 13th January and 13th April 1976.

Mr. Durant: In spite of the banter across the Floor of the House, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the housewife is desperately worried about the increasing cost of food? Will he consider the price of potatoes, which has increased by 11p in the past three months? Will he have discussions with the Minister of Agriculture about the working of the Potato Marketing Board, which I do not think is doing a very good job?

Mr. Maclennan: There is a separate Question on potatoes, which I shall answer when we reach it. However, on the question of food prices generally, it would be very helpful if the Opposition would make clear whether they propose the immediate abandonment of food subsidies.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proportion of lower incomes spent on food is very much higher than it has been for many years? In fact, there has been a step back to the position in the early years of this century. Does not that strengthen the case for retaining food subsidies, which are opposed by the Conservative Party?

Mr. Maclennan: The less-well-off spend a larger proportion of their income on food, but some encouragement should be taken from the fact that the food index, less seasonal foods, shows that the rate of increase of 27·9 per cent. in April last year had fallen to 13·8 per cent. this year. If we include seasonal foods, which have been affected seriously by what has happened with potatoes, the fall is from 26·6 per cent. to 19·9 per cent. Therefore, some progress is discernible.

Food Subsidies

Mr. Dodsworth: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is the value of food subsidies per person per week in the average family of four persons comprising two children over 11 years of age and two adults.

Mr. Maclennan: The estimated average value for a typical family of two adults and two children is about 18p per week per person.

Mr. Dodsworth: I thank the Minister for his reply. Can be confirm that, as a direct consequence of the Chancellor's increase in indirect taxation, the average weekly cost to a family is 50p? Will he tell the House whether that rather curious choice of priorities was agreed in any discussions with the Trades Union Congress?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member raises questions which are wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does the Under-Secretary's answer include subsidies on school meals?

Mr. Maclennan: It does not.

Mr. Hooley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the need for food subsidies might be somewhat less if we were not saddled with the idiocy of the common agricultural policy? Is he aware of the racketeering which is now going on in beef, which is going into intervention stores, coming out cheap and then being sold at exaggerated profits? Is this matter to be investigated by his Department?

Mr. Maclennan: My Department was recently represented by myself at the discussions of the EEC on the future of the common agricultural policy. Membership of the EEC has some beneficial impacts in that at this time, when the fall in the value of the pound sterling is affecting imported food prices, that fall is to some extent cushioned by monetary compensatory amounts.

Mr. Neubert: Does not the Under-Secretary agree that, given the background of 50·9 per cent. inflation during this Government's term of office against a record annual rate last August of 26–9 per cent. and the most recent rate of annual inflation of 18·9 per cent., food subsidies that provide relief of 0·9 per cent. on the Retail Price Index are as significant as a pimple on a baby's bottom?

Mr. Maclennan: The present value of food subsidies on the food index is 4.9 per cent. The Opposition must come to terms with the fact that their advocacy of the abolition of the Price Code, their non-support for the Price Check Scheme and their proposal that we should end food subsidies add up to Substantial additions to the Retail Price Index. They must make up their minds what they want.

Bus Fares

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will take steps to meet representatives of the transport users' consultative committee in the near future to discuss increases in bus fares.

Mr. John Fraser: Following the Transport Acts of 1953 and 1962, the transport consultative committees are not empowered to consider bus services or fares and charges. I shall, however, be discussing with them the Government's


consultative document on transport policy, which refers to both these subjects.

Mr. Ridsdale: When the Minister discusses this subject with the transport users' consultative committee, will he look into the operation of concessionary fares? These fares are operating very unfairly in various parts of the country. Will he also say whether it is possible for retirement pensioners to have a half-fare concession, as they do on the railways?

Mr. Fraser: I should be happy to discuss those matters and even happier if a guiding light could be shown by some Conservative local authorities which refuse concessionary fares.

Mr. Adley: Will the Minister listen carefully to the idea which has been put forward and recognise that there is great unfairness between local authority areas? It is not always a question of the local authorities. If the Government would get together with the National Bus Company to see whether a scheme similar to the British Rail scheme could be devised, with a card that pensioners could purchase, they would rightly earn themselves considerable gratitude throughout the country.

Mr. Fraser: There is always a balance to be struck between local autonomy and uniformity which brings a benefit both in custom and to users, particularly those who are vulnerable. I shall be very happy to discuss this matter.

Mr. Pavitt: Will my hon. Friend take a special look at concessionary fares for those disabled by blindness? Is he aware that the National League for the Blind has a number of special problems and that it would be helped considerably if there could be a meeting of transport providers, both road and rail?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, I am willing to discuss this matter.

Potatoes

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what steps she is now taking to control the price of potatoes; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Maclennan: As I have explained on a number of occasions, price controls cannot overcome the shortfall in potatoes. If we try to hold down prices artificially,

we shall discourage the imports on which we must increasingly depend until the new home crop is lifted.

Mr. Skinner: Then what is all this "phoney" war between the two Front Benches? Is my hon. Friend aware that an old lady in Bolsover said to me when I was out canvassing that a Government who believed in planning should be able to do something about the price of potatoes? The sooner the Government Front Bench apply their minds to that very fact, the sooner we might start not losing elections but winning them.

Mr. Maclennan: If my hon. Friend's Question had been about a visit to Bolsover I might have been able to answer his point about his constituent. I can offer him some news which I think may be of encouragement to him. The National Federation of Fruit and Potato Trades last week reported retail prices to be about 13p a pound for old potatoes and from 16p upwards for new potatoes. which is about 4p below the peak levels at the beginning of the month.

Mr. Marten: As some families when they eat their potatoes on Sunday can now occasionally afford some beef with the potatoes, can the Minister answer the supplementary question asked earlier by his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hooley (Mr. Heeley) on Question No. 14 about the racket in beef prices which has been disclosed—the selling of beef out of intervention at very high prices indeed?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman's attempt to mix beef and potatoes has created something of a hot-pot, and I do not propose to follow it.

Price Commission

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protecton how many letters she has received suggesting the abolition of the Price Commission.

Mr. Maclennan: None in recent months.

Mr. Gow: If the cost of the Price Commission in the current year is £6·6 million, does not the Minister think that it would be in the public interest for this monstrosity to be abandoned forthwith?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman's view may be shared by Tory


members, but it is not shared by those who are seeking to make our counter-inflation policy work. The CBI, the Retail Consortium and the TUC are united in agreeing that there must be a continuation of the pricing policy during the next period of extremely stringent wage inflation.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that during the period of potato shortage the price of rice appears by some coincidence to have risen very rapidly? What has the Price Commission been doing about that?

Mr. Maclennan: The Price Commission monitors fresh food prices regularly. If my hon. Friend will table a specific Question, I have no doubt that I shall be able to answer it.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that for category 1 companies it is estimated that about £35 million is spent in administering the Price Code? Is not this an indication that the Price Code should be abolished?

Mr. Maclennan: The Price Commission does a very important job in monitoring and controlling allowable cost increases, and it would be wholly wrong at this time to depart from the existing technique of price control. If the hon. Member is advocating that on behalf of the Opposition, I hope that he will make it plain that that is what he is doing. The Price Commission fulfils other purposes and was established in perpetuity by the Act, for which the Tory Government were responsible, to enable pricing policy to be examined.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Will the Minister now say exactly what effect the abolition of the Price Code would have upon the Retail Price Index?

Mr. Maclennan: My right hon. Friend has already explained the precise elements involved.

Mrs. Oppenheim: No.

Mr. Maclennan: Yes. If the hon. Lady refers to Hansard, she will see a full answer on this question.

Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend give the House some information about investigations by the Price Commission into the price of potatoes? Is he aware

that ordinary small and large retailers, greengrocers and people such as fish-and-chip merchants are getting tired of having to explain the steep increases and that there is increasing suspicion on the part of the public that farmers and wholesalers have been making a killing? If the Price Commission investigates these matters, the public will be assured that the blame lies fairly.

Mr. Maclennan: The Price Commission investigates distributors' margins, and two such reports are in the House of Commons Library. A third report will be available shortly. They make it plain that distributors are not profiteering on the shortage of potatoes. It is true that farmers have done rather well out of the potato shortage, by and large, even though there are variations. It is true also that farmers' profits vary from season to season and from commodity to commodity. Any further questions on farmers' profits would be better addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Prices

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she is satisfied with the current level of prices.

Mr. Maclennan: The current level of inflation represents a considerable improvement on the level a year ago, but I shall not be satisfied until our rate of inflation is brought down to the level of our competitors or even lower.

Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the successful battle which the Government are now waging to bring down the rate of inflation and in which they are hampered by the Conservative Opposition, who want to damage the pound, to hold down public spending and let private spending via prices go through the roof, the linchpin of the Government's agreement is the holding of prices, together with reducing unemployment?

Mr. Maclennan: I fully agree with my hon. Friend that the control of prices remains a vital part of the Government's battle against inflation and that this has been so throughout the first year of our counter-inflation policy. I am glad that the CBI and the TUC jointly recognise


that that will remain true during the next year.

Sir John Hall: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, apart from the falling value of the pound, the forward cost of imported raw materials and semifinished goods into this country is increasing at a rate which will make it impossible to reduce the inflation rate to single figures by the end of the year? Does he believe that he will be able to do that even by the end of 1977?

Mr. Maclennan: I agree that there has been some hardening in commodity prices due to the upturn in world trade, but I do not believe that the Government's counter-inflation targets will not be reached.

Mr. Pavitt: Will my hon. Friend consider the rise in the price of a tin of skimmed milk from 25p to 45p in the last few months? As so much of this is given to cattle, is it not possible that those who wish to avoid cholesterol should pay a cheaper price for skimmed milk?

Mr. Maclennan: I shall be very willing to consider that.

Mr. Adley: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that his remark about a considerable improvement in the rate of inflation is a diagnosis similar to that which would be given to a man who had been jumping from the thirtieth floor of a skyscraper every day and landing on his head but was now jumping from the fifteenth floor and still landing on his head?

Mr. Maclennan: I am at a loss to understand what object the hon. Gentleman thinks would be served by seeking to diminish the impact of the counter-inflation policy in which the country is engaged.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Mr. Gow: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to pay an official visit to the Duchy.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to pay an official visit to the Duchy.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next

intends to pay an official visit to the Duchy of Lancaster.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Harold Lever): I have no plans for an official visit to the Duchy at the present time.

Mr. Gow: Since the Chancellor has no plans to visit the Duchy, and as he has been relieved of some of his duties concerning North Sea oil, will he confirm that he is still the chief economic adviser to the Government and tell us the nature of the advice that he is giving about the public sector borrowing requirement?

Mr. Lever: I have confirmed that, despite my personal physical absence from the Duchy, I continue to look after the Duchy affairs. I am economic and financial adviser to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. As for the nature of the advice, if the hon. Gentleman would be more specific I would be happy to repeat it to him, so far as it is not confidential to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Skinner: Now that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been relieved of certain duties in respect of the oil deals, will he perhaps go to the Duchy and explain, as economic adviser to the Government, the list of the successes that he has achieved, especially as Bank Rate is nearly at an all-time high, with record unemployment, a massive balance of trade deficit and the pound at an all-time low? Are these the sorts of successes for which he has been responsible, or does the net go even wider?

Mr. Lever: At the risk of disappointing my hon. Friend, may I point out that he has failed to observe that the Prime Minister has indicated that I shall remain closely associated with the North Sea oil negotiations? With regard to the Government's achievements, there is little evidence that my hon. Friend, although in continuous nominal support of the Government, has ever been other than in critical dissent from any major policy of the Government.

Mr. Rost: Was the right hon. Gentleman relieved of his duties to negotiate with the North Sea oil companies because he had reached as far as he could go on a voluntary basis or because he was not going far enough?

Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening with his usual close attention or intelligence. As I pointed out to my hon. Friend, I have not been relieved of my duties. We have reached a stage in the negotiations when the Prime Minister properly took the view that it is now time that a lead should be taken in those negotiations by the Secretary of State. I remain closely associated with the negotiations, and their character has not fundamentally changed from what it would have been if I had remained in another rôle.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the change of ministerial responsibility for North Sea oil, may we expect some continuing participation in accordance with the Labour Party manifesto instead of the sham agreement with the multinationals?

Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly asserted these agreements to be a sham. They are not a sham. We have proceeded on the same principles of participation, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, in continuing successfully to negotiate with the oil companies concerning the North Sea.

Mr. Tapsell: When the right hon. Gentleman next gives economic advice to the Prime Minister, will he draw the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that it is almost universally agreed abroad and at home that nothing would more quickly strengthen the position of the £ sterling internationally than for the Government immediately to announce substantial expenditure cuts? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is widely agreed by many of us who are horrified at the concept of widespread unemployment that expenditure cuts would have no greater effect on unemployment if they were made now rather than next year as proposed?

Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman would be more constructive and more sincere in his purpose if he were to raise those points where they could be properly discussed. [Interruption.] I mean in circumstances which would permit the exhaustive discussion of the points he raised. I must content myself by inviting the hon. Gentleman to let us have particulars of the cuts that he thinks we should make and which he thinks would be desirable, and when he is able to suggest what those are they will certainly

be drawn to the attention of the Government.

Mr. Heffer: Assuming that the Duchy of Lancaster covers Merseyside, will my right hon. Friend get down to the nitty-gritty of the question of the decision on Friday that Glasgow should receive £120 million, which will not affect the ratepayers of Glasgow, for the redevelopment of the centre of that city? Is he aware that in the Duchy of Lancaster there are cities like Liverpool and Manchester which have equally serious urban redevelopment problems? Will he consult his right hon. Friends in the Government—I see that he is doing so now—and come up with some positive proposals to assist cities like Liverpool and Manchester to deal with their urban renewal without the whole cost going on to the rates?

Mr. Lever: I can promise my hon. Friend that both those cities are near to my heart, one nearer than the other, and that I shall closely watch what possibilities there are within Government policy to advantage them. But none of this alters the fact that the Government's action in relation to Glasgow was amply warranted by the extent of poverty in that city.

Mr. Pym: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what representations he has received, if any, from the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, on behalf of that section of farm workers whom it represents, in relation to tied houses which form part of the Duchy's property?

Mr. Lever: I have received no such representation

Oral Answers to Questions — ECCLESIASTICAL PATRONAGE

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will make a statement on his exercise of ecclesiastical patronage in the Duchy.

Mr. Lever: The Queen is Patron of certain benefices in the Church of England in her right of the Duchy of Lancaster. When the Chancellor of the Duchy is a Roman Catholic or a Jew, the Clerk of the Council of the Duchy, who is a full-time Duchy official, acts in his place in advising the Queen on these matters.

Mr. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I fully understand leis reasons, despite the added time that is now on his hands, for not exercising the right of patronage? May I ask him whether, as economic adviser to the Prime Minister—indeed, I congratulate him on his continuing appointment in that respect—he will be seeing and endorsing the terms of the next letter to the IMF applying for the next—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this ecclesiastical patronage?

Oral Answers to Questions — STUDENT-TEACHERS (PROTEST)

Mr. Stokes: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision yesterday by the Executive of the National Union of Students to call on all student-teachers in England and Wales to occupy their colleges as a protest against unemployment among teachers.
I submit that this is a specific matter because the National Union of Students made its call to all student-teachers yesterday, and although this organisation is not a trade union in the normal sense of the word, because students are not employees, there is no doubt that its call will have much the same effect as if an ordinary trade union had issued a strike notice.
It is an important matter because the rule of law is challenged, and if these occupations were to be ignored by Parliament we should be failing in our duty to uphold the law. Further, while the students are engaged in sitting-in, the taxpayers' money is being wasted, quite apart from the physical damage which may be caused as a result of the sit-ins. The numbers involved are very large, approaching, I am told, no fewer than 100,000.
Finally, I submit that the matter is urgent because occupations have already begun and are continuing.
I believe it important that this House should have an opportunity later this evening to debate this action by the NUS before matters grow any worse. I consider it a proper subject to be given priority over the British Transport Docks

(Felixstowe) Bill, which is a highly contentious measure and disliked by the majority of people in this country.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision yesterday by the Executive of the National Union of Students to call on all student-teachers in England and Wales to occupy their colleges as a protest against unemployment among teachers.
As the House knows—[Interruption]—under Standing Order No. 9, I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision. [Interruption.] Order. May I say that it is extremely discourteous to me, when I am addressing the House, for any hon. Member to interrupt.
I have given careful consideration to the representations that the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge has made, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT

Mrs. Hart: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely,
the deadlock and danger of the breakdown of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in Nairobi and the urgent need for the British delegation to be given fresh instructions.
There is no doubt that this is a specific matter. It concerns negotiations which are going on at this moment, and in which, according to all the reports I have received personally and which hon. Members will have read over the weekend, there is a very real threat of complete breakdown and even of the conference dispersing in disarray.
That it is important can surely be in no doubt whatever. It is a four-yearly conference. As we know, many matters


are arising at the conference which, if they are not resolved, will have the gravest consequences for us in Britain and for all industrialised countries. Indeed, I refer the House to an Answer given today by my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. These are all matters in which our future is involved.
The position is relevant to the House in this respect; given the nature of the Order Paper and of our debates, there has been no opportunity in the last 10 days for any Question to be put to the Ministers responsible—the Secretary of State for Trade in particular—and yet, in the present deadlock, Britain occupies a crucial position. As far as one can understand it, we are hovering between, on the one hand, the United States, Germany and Japan, and, on the other, the Netherlands, Denmark, the rest of the Scandinavian countries, France and the Commission of the EEC, in determining our attitude on the key element in the conference, which is that of a common fund to support the commodity agreements, about which, as the House is aware, there is an all-party motion signed by a great number of hon. Members. Britain's rôle is, therefore, crucial.
That rôle at the moment is determined by the instructions given to our delegation in Nairobi. It is therefore most urgent that this House should be allowed to influence the exercise of executive power in this country—namely, the Government—by seeking to debate the matter with the hope that fresh instructions could be issued to our delegation.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Lady asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the deadlock and danger of the breakdown of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in Nairobi and the urgent need for the British delegation to be given fresh instructions.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9, I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision. I have given careful consideration to the representations which the right hon. Lady has made—of which she gave me notice—but I have to rule that her submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit her application to the House.

IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION

3.40 p.m.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the changing demographic character of Great Britain, particularly the outflow of young people emigrating overseas and the continuing inflow of immigrants from the new Commonwealth; and calls on the Government, in the interests of improving race relations, to make a clear and accurate statement of its immigration policy.
This debate takes place against a background of rising public anxiety about Commonwealth immigration into Britain, together with a more muted but nevertheless profound concern about the increasing number of talented young people who are voting with their feet, and emigrating from Britain.
I have, therefore, chosen these two subjects of emigration and immigration as the theme of this Private Member's motion because I believe that there is a real danger that Britain may be sleepwalking into a sea change of our national character.
Moreover, I fear that, while others have been doing the walking, Parliament has been doing the sleeping, for 26 years have elapsed since this House last debated emigration, and it is three years since we last had a full debate devoted exclusively to immigration.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, a reflective appraisal of the shifts and changes in the demographic make up of Britain is surely long overdue, and I hope that this debate will go some way towards fulfilling that purpose.
Beginning with emigration, I think the House may be surprised to learn that during the last two years, in round figures, 500,000 people have emigrated from Britain and gone to live overseas. In 1974, the emigration figure was 269,000. For 1975, the precise figures are not yet available, but we know that 175,000 people emigrated in the first nine months of last year, and that provisional estimates for the full year suggest an emigration total of around 230,000.
The source for these figures, incidentally, is the international passenger survey conducted by the Department of Trade's Office of Population Census,

which is widely regarded as the most authentic source of information on external migration. I will not bore the House with a detailed analysis of these emigration statistics, but suffice it to say that the overwhelming majority of those leaving are indigenous United Kingdom citizens. Three-quarters of them are under 45, and of these a steadily rising proportion are people with professional and technological qualifications.
In 1974 alone, a record 61,000 professional men and women left Britain, and the remainder of the exodus contained a high percentage of executives, managers, technicians and highly skilled workers. By sheer weight of numbers, the brain drain of the 1960s has been transformed into the middle management drain of the 1970s, and it amounts to a haemorrhage of talent which Britain can ill afford.
I think the House should reflect for a moment on the motives behind this movement of middle management talent overseas. The reasons are rather devious. One is the combination of low salaries and high taxation. Another is the combination of high inflation and a pay retraint policy which together ensure that British managers cannot begin to maintain either their real incomes or the differentials which separate them from the shop floor.
But more important than any of these is the political mood of our present times. The politics of decline, the philosophy of levelling everyone down, the national habit of self-denigration and the politics of envy have all helped to drive these emigrants out.
Without being unduly partisan about it, I think the lesson of these immigration figures is that future Governments of Britain, whatever their political complexion, should not just confine their policies towards improving the lot of the average man. They should also provide policies which give incentives and encouragement for the exceptional man. If this is not done, the march of talented young emigrants may well become a stampede.
I turn now to immigration, and I should like to begin by paying tribute to the fine contribution so many members of the immigrant community have made to our society, particularly in the National Health Service, in many areas of public


services, especially transport, and in the creation of enterprising small businesses and service industries.
But the only way we can hope to build on the foundations of good race relations which these immigrants have created, and the only way we can attain the totally desirable objective of complete equality for those already settled in this country, is if we have first succeeded in creating public confidence that the control of immigration is being as strictly enforced as is humanly possible. Immigration control is not the enemy of good race relations but its necessary complement.
This thought has been expressed many times by hon. Members in all parts of the House, not least by the Home Secretary. Speaking on the Second Reading of the Race Relations Bill on 4th March 1976, the right hon. Gentleman said it was an important principle of Government policy:
That there is a clear limit to the amount of immigration which this country can absorb, and that it is in the interests of the racial minorities themselves to maintain a strict control over immigration."—[Official Report, 4th March 1976; Vol. 906, c. 1548.]
Those were the right hon. Gentleman's words. But the unfortunate truth has to be faced that the Home Secretary's actions have been a lot less strict than his words, for during the last two years there has, in fact, been a substantial relaxation on immigration control.
Indeed, the former Home Office Minister responsible for immigration, the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), far from being strict in his operational control of immigration, was positively permissive, and it is this ministerial permissiveness which has sown the seeds for the seething public discontent with immigration policy which has now erupted.
In 1973, when the 1971 Immigration Act had come fully into effect, the figure of immigrants accepted for settlement from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan had fallen from around 68,000 in 1968 to 34,000 in 1973. This figure was continuing to decline, thanks also to the tight administrative controls operated at the Home Office under the direction of the noble Lord, Lord Carr, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), whose philosophy, though always a humane and fair one, could be sum-

med up by the phrase "When in doubt, be firm and do not let them in. Do not let applicants flood in, because we always need to assure the white majority in this country that immigration will be controlled strictly at a tolerable level."
But from 1974 onwards, the new Commonwealth immigrant total started to rise again, due to a series of changes of policy and administrative practices by the new Government. First, the new Government accelerated the inflow of United Kingdom passport holding immigrants by increasing the annual quota of special vouchers for East African Asians from 3,500 a year to 5,000. This has meant an increase of around 6,000 Asian immigrants a year.
Then there was a Government decision to allow new Commonwealth fiancées to enter Britain and settle here permanently on marriage. Including husbands this has meant in 1975 an estimated increase of 7,750 immigrants entering for matrimonial reasons to start families here.
There has also been a noticeable relaxation in the numbers of dependants allowed to enter for settlement, including more parents, grandparents, distressed relatives, and the dependants of those pardoned in the recent amnesty for illegal immigrants. The increased numbers here are relatively small, but I think it is time to say that the growing awareness of these relaxations has had an adverse psychological impact on the indigenous population which has been detrimental to good race relations.
It cannot be said too often that good race relations can flourish only within a framework of public confidence. The real indictment of the policies of the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for York is that they have severely damaged that framework of public confidence by letting in, on the official figures alone, 20,000 new Commonwealth immigrants for settlement a year, at a time when our domestic problems of unemployment, homelessness and economic recession were already being strained to breaking point. To increase immigration at such an undesirable social and economic time was a most misguided policy.
I respect the sincertity of the hon. Member for York, and I think that, in particular, the work he tried to do in


countering urban deprivation for immigrants was admirable in its intention, but when he pats himself on the back, as he did after his exit—to use a euphemistic word—from the Government for his efforts to get justice for the black man, I must ask him to consider whether by increasing immigration during the last two years, and thereby creating so much anxiety among the host population here, he did not, in fact, create a situation where the black man was likely to encounter greater prejudice and injustice.
But, whatever the rôle of the hon. Member for York may or may not have been, the position now is that the terrain of race relations in this country has been transformed in the last year or two from being a relatively tranquil pasture of tolerance and understanding into a dry and brittle scrubland of tension which could be set ablaze at any moment by a spark of fear, anger or misunderstanding.
As we all know, one such spark ignited a few weeks ago, when the West Sussex County Council installed two Asian families in a four-star hotel for several weeks at a cost to the taxpayer of £600 per week. That administrative decision made our immigration and welfare policies the laughing stock of the whole world. It caused enormous resentment among working people here, among homeless people and among taxpayers, and it has probably itself done great damage to race relations.
But, although I think an administrative error of judgment was made by the local authority officials concerned in this case, the fact remains that it is unreasonable to expect any local authority to bear the housing burdens of national immigration policy. A worrying vacuum of responsibility exists here, and I hope that the Home Secretary will tell the House today how he intends to till it.
I would also like to ask the Home Secretary whether he proposes to take any steps to ensure that entry vouchers are issued only to those immigrants who have some means of supporting and accommodating themselves. A passport to Britain should not be a passport to free loading on the Welfare State, and the loopholes which allow this to happen must be closed.
A second spark which recently ignited deep public concern over immigration was

the decision of the Malawi Government to expel a number of Asian families holding British passports. The numbers of those expelled so far by that malevolent despot, Dr. Banda, have proved mercifully small—perhaps the Home Secretary will give us the exact figure—but the episode sharply reminded us that some 40,000 to 45,000 East African Asians holding British passports are living on borrowed time on the edge of political volcanoes.
I believe that we are under an obligation to these British passport holders, although the precise nature of that obligation must be carefully considered in the light of Lord Carr's statement following the Ugandan Asian problem, which was so humanely and honourable dealt with, when he said in this House on 21st February 1973 that any further influx of that order could not be handled by a British Government in the same way.
I believe that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) had the right approach when he said in the House last week that diplomatic talks should be initiated with the Governments of Canada, India and Australia to see whether they would help us with the potential future burdens of this problem.
I would also like to ask the Home Secretary for clarification of the apparent differences of policy which have arisen between the Home Office and the Foreign Office on the issue of expelled East African Asians. As I understand it, successive Home Office Ministers have assured the House that if Malawi Asians or any other East African Asians are expelled, the numbers accepted here will be kept strictly within the voucher scheme on which there is an absolute limit of 5,000 vouchers per year.
However, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard), speaking from the Dispatch Box last Monday, said some ambiguous words, indicating that there might be circumstances in the future when the 5,000 voucher limit would need to be expanded. Well, whose policy is right? I hope that the Home Secretary can enlighten us on this important point. I hope also that the House recognises that when, speaking last week on this issue, the former Government Chief Whip cried out "Enough


is enough", he was probably speaking for the overwhelming majority of the British people, and I agree with him.
Everything that I have said so far has been on the subject of what I would like to describe as 'front door" immigration, by which I mean the official statistics and estimates of those admitted for settlement with the ful authority of the Home Office for proper and legitimate reasons. But there is, of course, a twilight zone of mystery and doubt over some of the immigration figures, both actual and potential, and here I must turn to the subject of what I call "back door immigration".
I say at once that I am not one of those who believe that the Home Office or its Ministers deliberately mislead the public over immigration facts and statistics. But what I do think is that there are some factual aspects of this problem which "shambolically" and sloppily assessed that certain areas of immigration policy have now entered into an "Alice in Wonderland" world of make believe.
You may remember, Mr. Speaker, from your reading of Lewis Carroll, that at one moment in the story when Alice entertains some doubts, the Red Queen says sharply to her:
I dare say you have not had any breakfast. I can sometimes believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
The trouble with accepting everything we are told about our immigration policy, whether before breakfast or at any other time, is that it simply involves believing one impossible thing after another. The first area of incredibility surrounds illegal immigration.
Last Friday, the Home Secretary very courteously arranged for me to be briefed by four of his officials in the Home Office. These officials, may I say in passing, could not have been more open, more frank or more cooperative in answering my inquiries. But when I asked them for the statistics on illegal immigration, the answer was that during the whole year of 1975, a total of 188 illegal immigrants were detected and detained. When I expressed surprise at the small size of this figure of 188, I was assured that, although no one could say that these arrests covered all illegal immigrants, nevertheless, the Home Office had no reason for suspecting that this figure of 188 was merely the tip

of an iceberg of massive illegal immigration.
Well, I must say I was slightly sceptical about this, so later that same day, thanks to the courtesy of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, I was given a briefing by senior police officers from Scotland Yard's Illegal Immigration Squad. From these police sources, a very different and deeply disturbing picture of the illegal immigration situation emerged.
The police say that the small number of arrests only scratches the surface of what is now recognised to be a massive immigrant smuggling racket, cleverly organised at a price of around £1,500 per immigrant by sophisticated big-time criminals from Britain and the Continent. It is now well known that there exists an efficient and well organised pipeline system for passing illegal immigrants from Pakistan and India through Iran, Turkey and Southern Europe until they reach certain accommodation bases and hotels in France, Belgium or Germany in groups of about 50 a time.
In broad terms, the police estimate that at any one moment there are about 700 illegal immigrants in transit in this criminal pipeline, and that the number actually reaching Britain probably runs into thousands annually.
The question of course arises, how do these illegal immgrants move from their European accommodation bases and hotels across the Channel and remain here undetected? Although small boats, light aircraft and the boots of motor cars undoubtedly play a large part as methods of transportation, the two biggest methods of facilitating entry are false documentation and container lorries. There is a big racket, I am told, in forged passports and other identity documents. As for container lorries, it must be acknowledged that at the port of Dover alone 328,000 sealed container vehicles were admitted into Britain in 1975. The police simply do not have the manpower to inspect these. But the Chief Constable of Kent tells me that he suspects strongly that this is one major method of smuggling immigrants into Britain.
Once an illegal immigrant has crossed the Channel, or an Asian seaman has deserted his ship in a British port, as so many are now doing, and melted away


into the immigrant underground, it is unfortunately a comparatively simple process for him to obtain real or forged documents—particularly social security cards—which thereby give him an identity, and give him certain fundamental rights, which include access to the benefits of our Welfare State, and may, in some cases, include the right subsequently to bring in his own dependants.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: And the vote.

Mr. Aitken: The point I am making is that the Home Office are guilty of terrifying complacency if they think that this illegal immigration traffic is insignificant in size and in any way related in quantity to the 1975 figures of 188 arrests or the 1974 figure of 157 arrests.
I hope that I have said enough to alert the House to the magnitude of the illegal immigration problem, and I now say to the Home Secretary that it is his duty to declare all-out war on this vicious crime of illegal immigration, to give the police the extra port security manpower they need, to start an urgent dialogue with the Continental authorities and Interpol, and, above all, to tighten up on the ease with which false documents, especially social security cards, are finding their way into the hands of illegal immigrants.
I said earlier that there were several aspects of immigration policy which strained credulity. I have dealt with the figures on illegal immigration, but, returning to the vexed subject of dependants, I find it hard to believe that the Home Office is unable to give a statistical breakdown for the number of parents, grandparents, distressed relatives, second and third wives and so on, who are being allowed to settle here on or after entry.
I also find it hard to believe that the Home Office cannot give any sort of estimate of the enormous over-staying problem, because the various over-staying manoeuvres used by students and others are among the most abused and effective methods of achieving permanent settlement in this country by deceitful means. Most important of all, I am baffled by the inability of the Home Office to give an estimate of the size of the queue of dependants waiting to come into Britain from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan.
On the one hand, we have the hon. Member for York blithely telling us in The Sunday Times yesterday that the queue is, as he puts it, "very limited"—by which he means 150,000 people, mainly from the Indian sub-continent, whom he wants to see admitted very speedily. On the other hand, a respected member of the Select Committee on Race Relations, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith), reported to the House on 4th March on the Committee's visit to the West Indies, and he said:
there are thousands of illegitimate children there who are anxious to come here. Many of them have a claim to do so, and the line of dependants is long and complicated. Far from trickling off, the dependants could still be coming to this country 100 years from now unless the rules are changed".—[Official Report, 4th March 1976; Vol. 906, c. 1594.]
Caught in the crossfire of these and many other widely differing predictions, when the Home Secretary was asked last Thursday by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) for his estimate on the size of the dependants' queue, he gave the following answer of breathtakingly Delphic obscurity when he said:
it is not the practice to publish estimates of this kind, and any forecasts of future immigration would neccessarily be speculative".—[Official Report, 20th May 1976; Vol. 911, c. 1694.]
The Home Secretary must stop this kind of speculative double talk and start publishing the real facts.
There are so many areas of doubt and uncertainty about immigration that many people in the country fear that there is a conspiracy of silence on the true size or nature of the problem. In order to dispel such fears, I believe that the time has now come for a radical overhaul of the information-gathering system, for full and open disclosure of all the information so obtained, and for a complete crackdown to ensure genuinely strict and effective immigration control. The British people and the immigrant communities here are crying out for reassurance that this will be done, and I hope that the Home Secretary will give that reassurance today.
I should like finally to say a word about the changing demographic character a Britain. In his historical writings, Lord Macaulay frequently expounded his cyclical view of British history, and in its


most striking form he expressed it in a famous essay in which he depicted the traveller from New Zealand standing on a broken arch of London Bridge sketching the ruins of St. Paul's Cathedral.
Of course, as every school boy knows, Macaulay was not infrequently over-opinionated and wrong in his judgments, and, as far as those particular edifices are concerned, there seems not the slightest threat to their stability. Yet we in the House are all blind and deaf if we fail to acknowledge that a cyclical change is sweeping through our national demographic character and our population. Migration is only one aspect of these changes, and it should clearly be said that the arrival of some new Commonwealth immigrants may well enrich Britain's future, for among them are individuals of great industry and talent, to whom we should readily extend the welcoming hand of friendship.
Other immigrants may contribute less, find it hard to become assimilated into the British way of life, and so remain alienated from it with depressing results for our future.
As far as talented emigrants are concerned, I can see their mass departures only as a national impoverishment. But whatever view we take of all these changes, we simply cannot go on ignoring them. Immigration and emigration should not be taboo subjects which Parliament only rarely discusses. Our silence on these issues contrasts strangely with the clamour of concern being voiced in the country. I hope that this debate will mark the beginning of the end of that silence.
For imagine our shame as parliamentarians if, when our grandchildren were to ask us, "What did you say in the House of Commons about the revolutionary demographic changes which began altering the face of Britain in the last quarter of the twentieth century?", we as retired old men had to reply, "We said nothing much".

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, may I say that I have an impossibly long list of those who wish to take part in the debate. I hope that those who are fortunate enough to be called will bear that fact in mind.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Robert Mellish: I do not think that anyone can quarrel with the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken), either on the subject he has chosen for debate or on the way in which he has raised it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I say that frankly and firmly, and I have as much right to my point of view as anyone else. Towards the end of his speech, the hon. Member said one thing with which I wholeheartedly agree. For a long time, the subject has been taboo in this House. It has been something which must not be spoken about, and anyone who has done so has risked being called all sorts of things—racialist among them—for even having the temerity to say something.
One of the reasons I was upset last week was that I had seen that this country once again was the victim of outrageous behaviour by people abroad. Is there anyone on the Labour Benches who defends Banda? He is a Fascist black man of the worst order. He has taken over the dictatorship of his country and put the opposition in prison. Now he has decided to expel sections of his community such as the Goans, who have committed no crime. Are we not to be allowed to attack Banda? Is it improper to do so because he has a dark skin? Let us get things straight about Banda. What he has done and the way in which he has done it are an outrage to civilisation.

Mr. George Cunningham: In making that point, is it not important for my right hon. Friend to recognise that it was not Dr. Banda who conferred upon these people the right to retain citizenship of United Kingdom and Colonies after independence? That was done by British Governments and the House of Commons. It was that action which gave rise to the present problems, not the actions of Dr. Banda.

Mr. Mellish: My hon. Friend can turn it which way he wants. I say only that it was Dr. Banda's action in expelling these people which created this problem for us—

Hon. Members: Rubbish.

Mr. William Molloy: Listen to him. He is correct. Tory Ministers granted the passports.

Mr. Mellish: Will my hon. Friend do me a favour and shut up? I already have enough difficulties.
The problem which we face has been created by other people. The burden falls upon our backs because we gave British passports to those being expelled. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will tell me when he winds up the debate whether I am right in assuming that we are liable to give Dr. Banda a suggested sum of £15 million to help him and his country. I have no doubt that they are in genuine need because his country is in great distress. It occurs to me that some of that money could well be spent in providing the people whom he now wishes to expel with homes in their own country back in India and Goa.
I want to get one thing clear. This is not the first time that I have intervened on this subject. I did it in 1965 and I was called everything that one could think of. Arising from that intervention, however, came the voucher system. Perhaps I had better tell the House the story about the voucher system. I was appointed to the sub-committee to examine whether there should be a voucher system. We were not getting very far.
As a junior Minister I went one day to the East End of London. The medical officer of health told me that he had visited a home where there were two nice Pakistanis. They were cousins and were of the Muslim faith. They were living here together and were doing a fine job for Britain. The man had problems because in a few weeks time both his wives were coming over here, with five children. One of his wives was expecting a baby. He had no home except for one room, and he asked for some extra room to be found for him. The MOH said to me, "You tell me the answer. You are a Minister". I said that although I was a Minister I would approach those who were brighter and more intelligent than I. I went to the sub-committee which was dealing with the problem. I will not mention names but I told the members of the sub-committee the story of the two wives and that one of them was to have a baby. A member of that committee, who is famous in the House, told me, "I do not think that you should let both wives in." I asked, "Which one

do you keep out? Is the man to be asked which wife he loves the best or which one is to have the baby?"
Soon after that incident the voucher system was introduced. Everyone agrees with that system and agrees that there should be control. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has endorsed that system, and I am glad that he has done so. He has said firmly and frankly that immigration should be controlled.
We cannot go on like this. I do not care what those on this side of the House, or the Opposition side or anywhere else, say. Problems at local level will become worse and worse for our own people unless something is done. All hon. Members know that people come to their surgeries describing the most distressing conditions—terrifying conditions. People born and bred in their own constituencies have been on the housing waiting list for as long as six years. But, on the points system, one must give immigrants preference. How is the problem to be tackled unless we get the figures right and the dispersal right? We must try to let the British people see that we are alerted to the problem. If we do not—

Dr. M. S. Miller: rose—

Mr. Mellish: Let me finish the sentence and then I shall give way. Unless we do that, our own people will take action which all of us here will regret.

Dr. Miller: I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend. Would he consider extending the kind of restrictions that he has in mind to the people of Southern Ireland?

Mr. Mellish: Yes, I certainly would. Have no doubt about that. If my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) wants it straight from me I can give it. I am not talking about black, white or yellow. With 53 million of us, we cannot go on without strict control of immigration. People cannot come here just because they have a British passport—full stop.

Mr. Frank Tomney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we do not do something within the next few years and China decides not to renew her option on Hong Kong in 1990, we shall be faced with an invasion of Hong Kong Chinese?

Mr. Mellish: That is a nice thought. If that were to happen perhaps even those who criticise and curl up their lips about anybody saying anything now might become interested.
I certainly believe that the Southern Irish should be barred now. With a population of over 50 million this country cannot go on admitting everyone. It is as straight as that.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to answer the questions put to him by the hon. Member for Thanet, East. We should know the figures on illegal immigration. In my area, certainly, it is known that there are a considerable number of people who are illegal immigrants. Why do not the police take action? Is there any check on the people who come here with work permits? What happens when those permits come to an end? Are Greeks and Italians—I do not care who they are—allowed to stay on? Does anybody care what happens?
We must convey to people outside the House that we are taking this matter seriously, that we shall have controls that are not broken, that we do have discussion with our Commonwealth friends, who are supposed to be our brothers in arms. Let us talk about whether we can share this burden and see whether it is possible to pay with the money we are giving to Dr. Banda the fares of people from Malawi so that they can be rehabilitated in India.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitkin) not only on a distinguished speech but on having brought this matter before the House and resisted the pressures which were naturally brought to bear upon him to do no such thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Really?"] Is that a secret? I should not have thought that that should surprise anyone. However, the hon. Member for Thanet, East can speak for himself. As the hon. Member said, what sort of representative House would we be if, year after year, we were deliberately, first upon the option of one Opposition and then upon the option of another, to ensure that there was no proper debate in the House on the subject which, above all others, is of the

most torturing concern to millions of people in this country?
That concern sometimes comes nearer to the surface and at other times it falls away. In the last few days an upsurge of concern has occurred—mainly promoted by the prospect that under present policies—that is the correct expression—we may expect from Malawi around 20,000 additional immigrants to this country. There is a tradition in the country of accepting and succouring those—

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): Before that figure gains currency, I must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. There are between 6,000 and 7,000 British passport holders in Malawi.

Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman knows that to that number of heads of families there is a corresponding number—

Mr. Jenkins: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong again.

Mr. Powell: if there are 6,500 British passport holders, they are entitled to be accommodated with a certain number of dependants.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: indicated assent.

Mr. Powell: I see that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) is with me. I place the figure at a low point in speaking of about 20,000 in total.
I was saying that for a country with our traditions of accepting and succouring those driven out of their homes, particularly under political pressure, there would be no problem created by 20,000 refugees. But everybody knows what is the context of this anticipated, in itself relatively minor, influx. One element of that context is the limitless and continuing general influx, whether it is estimated at 50,000 a year—that is the Home Office figure for 1975—or whether it is based upon the more controversial figure of entry minus exit, which, for 1975, would come to some 100,000. Whichever it is—be it at the rate of 500,000 or a million in a decade—one of the elements in the background is that steady, large, inexorably continuing flow.
There are those who would have us believe that this is a terminal phenomenon, that we should not be anxious about these figures because we are exhausting a reservoir where the liquid is already not tar from the bottom. On the contrary, as I have recently said, we are bailing out an ocean. There is no limit under present policies to the rate and magnitude of the inflow—no limit, unless those policies are radically altered.
An Assistant Under-Secretary of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mr. Hawley, a holder of the CMG as well as a Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, paid a visit to posts in the Indian sub-continent a few months ago. His report is enlightening. I shall trouble the House with a number of extracts from it because they are of great importance, but I thought that the whole document was such that it should be placed in the hands of the Press, and that I have done. He says:
current procedures and instructions are based on a Home Office assumption that the immigration problem in the sub-continent is finite and that we are in the last stages of clearing up a backlog of 'entitled' dependants.
He always writes "entitled" in inverted commas, and rightly so—he knows his law. He continues:
All the Heads of Mission and Posts are convinced that this assumption is wrong and I share their view.
He gives reasons, with some of which I will trouble the House, for that opinion, which he shares with all our representatives in the Indian sub-continent. He says:
Experience at the sub-continental posts shows that earlier Home Office estimates may be very low. For instance, the figure for 'entitled' dependants from Bangladesh was put in 1974 at 10,460 for the period up to 1985. However, the post will at the present rate have issued at least 12,000 Entry Certificates in the two years ending December 1976. alone. In fact, the Bangladesh Overseas Union quote a figure of 100,000 Bangalees in the UK, of whom a large percentage (perhaps, in Dacca's view, as high as 80 per cent.) may be unaccompanied. On average three dependants are covered by one Entry Certificate, and thus 80,000 sponsors could produce 240,000 dependants or more. Delhi estimates the Indian pool at 50,000–70,000 and there is no sign of the number of applications diminishing at any of the posts.
He continues with other reasons for entirely discounting the notion that there is any bottom to the reservoir. The hon. Member for Thanet, East referred

to illegal immigration; and I congratulate him on having brought to the attention of the House the advice which he received from the Metropolitan Police. Here is advice, as it were, from the other end:
illegal immigration still continues on some scale and the dependants of illegal immigrants may be admitted either after the illegal immigrant's stay has been regularised or as a result of false documentation successfully presented to an ECO or the appellate authorities
Again—
'entitled' dependants may include second or third wives, particularly in the case of Muslims, as at present Muslim men resident in the UK may have more than one wife provided that they retain their domicile in a country where polygamy is recognised.
Once admitted for settlement, 'entitled' dependants may bring in fiancés, fiancées, husbands and wives, together in many cases with certain dependants of such persons.
Again—
apart from 'entitled' dependants, posts are also dealing with many applications from other dependants, viz. parents, grandparents and distressed relatives, brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles".
He adds further elements to the picture of the inexhaustible supply and the inexhaustible pressure of immigration into this country—and remember, this is dealing only with the Indian subcontinent. He says:
The enormous and tragic graduate unemployment in India … also provides a great Incentive for young men and women to apply to enter the UK as students or as short-term visitors with the object of overstaying and being forgotten or later having their position regularised.
The House may be interested to know—again some reference was made to this by the hon. Gentleman—that
There is an established 'industry' for helping people to come to Britain. For instance, in Sylhet
—I do not know how many hon. Members even know whereabouts on the map Sylhet is—
there are over 200 travel agents and in Jullundur in the Punjab I met 80 personally. It is common knowledge that suitable documentation can nearly always be obtained for a price in the sub-continent and these agents are adept in providing whatever may be required.
I ask the patience of the House for only one or two further quotations from what is the first real enlightenment on circumstances at the other end which the House and the country have ever been allowed to receive, except in terms of rumour. He says.
Many of the immigrant community in the UK remain men of two worlds', retaining


their original nationality and passports as well as their domicile of origin, even when they have been resident here for long periods. They make considerable remittances, both to support their families and also for investment in property and housebuilding in their original homes on a scale which makes the wealthier of them 'Petty Nabobs in Reverse'.… It was clear from the many people to whom I spoke that the vast majority of sub-continentals
—those are what used to be "Indians" before 1947—
still reckon to get their marriage partners from their own original areas rather than to marry within the UK, and this process is likely to continue. Dependants interviewed for settlement come in the main straight from villages where the culture is very different from our own and only in the rarest case have they any knowledge of English. There is also strong evidence that large numbers of sub-continentals—particularly Bangalees—have been practising tax frauds for many years by making false declarations about their dependants.
Finally, Mr. Hawley departs from the scene, as it were, with the following hardly ironical but certainly bitter reflection. On the part of the Governments of India, Pakistan or Bangladesh there is, he says,
no pressure on the UK to admit more immigrants, although all the posts concerned have representations made from time to time, particularly over students and visitors. Many influential Indians, Pakistanis and Bangalees expressed amazement to me at our immigration policies, wondering particularly why we still admitted so many immigrants with no knowledge of English or roots in the UK. Some even suggested that immigrants should only have been allowed in on temporary work permits, and many felt that the interests of bona fide business and other visitors were prejudiced by immigrants and their deceptions.
Some senior officers in the Posts thought that respect for our law and procedures—and indeed acumen—were diminishing in the eyes of local governments because it was obvious that in so many cases we were 'being taken for a ride'.
All this, however, is not the only element in the background to current immigration, which millions of people in this country understand perfectly well, although they do not know the precise figures and facts I have been quoting. There is also the constant increase in size of the new Commonwealth population which is already in this country—the continual increase towards that estimate of a former Home Secretary that one-third of major towns and cities and industrial areas in our country will be coloured.
A month or two ago, OPCS published, for the first time for five years, figures of the percentage of total births where

the mothers were from the new Commonwealth. I shall trouble the House with only a few figures. In the London Borough of Brent, the 1974 figure was 36 per cent.—more than one-third of all births. In Ealing it was 34 per cent., in Hackney 33 per cent., in Haringey 34 per cent., in Lambeth 30 per cent., in Newham 30 per cent., in Tower Hamlets 27 per cent., and in Wandsworth 26 per cent. In Wolverhampton over the years 1969–74 the figures were 26 per cent., 25 per cent., 24 per cent., 25 per cent., 25 per cent. and 24 per cent., thus continuing the steady percentage of 25 per cent. since the beginning of the 1960s at the latest—for we have no indication before that of the proportion of births to new Commonwealth mothers. I end my quotations with the dramatic figures from Leicester which show that the percentages of total births where the mothers were from the new Commonwealth were 18 per cent. in 1969, 19 per cent. in 1970, 20 per cent. in 1971, 23 per cent. in 1972, 25 per cent. in 1973 and 26 per cent. in 1974.
The picture there is not of a single year but of the inexorable build-up of a whole generation, which will, in course of time, reproduce itself—I have never in any of my calculations, inside or outside the House, used the assumption of a higher birth rate among new Commonwealth immigrants than among the rest of the population—and eventually become the picture of the entire population in great areas of this country.

Mr. Ronald Bell: rose—

Mr. Powell: I suspect that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) is going to remind me that these figures are now increasingly an under-statement because they do not include births—which are going to occur in ever larger numbers—to mothers who, although born in this country, are in no other respect different from the mothers whose births are recorded in the statistics I have quoted.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Powell: I am under great necessity of time and the appeal from the Chair; and therefore, although I have often given way to the hon. Gentleman on this subject before and perhaps often will again, he will understand that, once one


breaches a rule, one is bound to be guilty of unfairness to other hon. Members who wish to take part. Of course I gave way to the Home Secretary, but I do not wish to be unfair to other hon. Members.
We are already witnessing the physical consequences of this growing and—on present policies—inexorable transformation of some of the principal cities and industrial areas of this country. Of course, we do not read about them in the national newspapers. One must read the local newspapers and read them quite carefully to know what is actually happening.
There are cities and areas in this country, some not many miles from this House, where assaults upon the police are matters of daily occurrence and where in daylight, let alone after dark, ordinary citizens are unwilling and afraid to go abroad. Day by day and at a mounting rate this transformation in actual outward behaviour is taking place in these cities.
Occasionally there emerges something above the surface. I do not expect that hon. Members saw the headline
50 police constables injured in Birmingham
as it appeared in the Birmingham Sunday Mercury of 16th May, although I understand that something was shown on television in that instance. For the most part, these cases go unreported except locally; but they are continuing and mounting and are very well known to those who live in the areas concerned and who see such areas being transformed beyond all recognition, from their own homes and their own country to places where it is a terror to be obliged to live.
Yet, even though that picture is dark and darkening, there is one factor which has not yet been injected. I do not know whether it will be tomorrow, or next year, or in five years; but it will come. That factor is firearms and explosives. With communities which are so divided nothing can prevent the injection of explosives and firearms with the escalating and self-augmenting consequences which we know perfectly well from experience in other parts of the United Kingdom and the world.
At first there will be horrified astonishment, and inquiry as to what we have done wrong that such things should be happening. Then there will be feverish endeavour to find methods to allay the

supposed grievances which lie behind the violence. Then follows exploitation by those who use violence of the ascendancy they have thus gained over the majority and over authority. The thing goes forward, acting and reacting until a position is reached in which—Ishall dare to say it—compared to those areas, Belfast today will seem an enviable place.
Yet I shall not end upon that note.

Mr. David Lane: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Powell: No, I shall not. I am going to finish my speech.
Although it is right that the House should be forced to face the probable consequences of conditions as they exist today in Birmingham, Brixton and half a dozen other major cities and industrial areas, I do not wish to end what I have said upon the note of hopelessness which increasing numbers of our fellow citizens feel—hon. Members who do not know that, either do not live in or represent the areas concerned, or they are deaf to what those they represent write and say to them.
I am not accepting that there is no hope of escaping this fate, provided that we take two measures which this prospect necessarily requires. Both are within the power of a legal and humane Government and both are within the power of this House, if it can will them.
First, we should terminate net immigration into this country and say with the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) "Enough is enough".
There is nothing which obliges us, even in our statute law, to admit large numbers of those being admitted at present; and our statute law itself, which we are capable from time to time, as was done in 1962 and 1968, of revising and amending, is obsolete in the light of the facts as we know them and see them emerging.
But it would be cowardice to say no more than that net immigration must be brought to an end. It must be the resolve of all—of Government, Parliament and public authorities—in the interests of the future of all concerned, to ensure that, by every possible means, the emergence of these projections which everyone can see, which are not secret, is prevented. I do not believe that if Her Majesty's Government, with Parliament and overwhelming public opinion


behind them, were convinced, and publicly convinced, that it was in the interest of all the people resident in this country—as it is—that the numbers of new Commonwealth population in this country should cease to increase, we should be unable to limit that element if only to approximately its present size. I do not believe that such a resolve or such a policy would be found impracticable. But at least the Muse of Commons, this afternoon, thanks to the hon. Member for Thanet, East, has been told to its face what millions of people in this country want it to be told. Those that have ears to hear, let them hear.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I at least agree with the last sentence of the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). There is a sense in which those who have ears to hear ought to hear the full story and not the perversion of the statistics which takes place whenever the right hon. Gentleman opens his mouth. [Interruption.]

Mr. F. A. Burden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for Labour Members, when some hon. Members leave the Chamber, to say "There go the Fascists"? We are not Fascists, and we resent that. I hope you will decree that to be entirely out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Yes. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I certainly did not hear the word, but if it was used it would definitely be unparliamentary in the present context.

Mr. Lyon: It does not matter whether Members of this House like coloured immigration or dislike it, whether they like coloured people in this country or dislike them. The fact is that there are now Li million coloured people in this country and that for all time to come this country will be a multi-racial and multicultural society. The House must face up to that. I do not complain of any hon. Members pointing to the problems that may arise as a result of that situation, but that is the fact that now exists. Where the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) talks in his motion about the changing demographic nature of this country, what he really means is that we

are getting an increasing number of coloured people living here and that that may have certain consequences. I accept that.
For myself, I believe that there are great benefits accruing to us by the presence both of the people themselves and of the culture they have brought with them, and that there is a great deal to be gained in a society such as ours, which is tolerant and civilised, in gaining the benefit of a culture that is different from the host culture that we all enjoy. All of us, in addition to the host culture, have specifice cultures of our own. All of us share to some extent in the majority culture, which is our common birthright. It is true that in bringing in a substantial number of people from the new Commonwealth, the problem is not the problem of the pigmentation of the skin, except in the eye of the racially discriminatory. The problem is that of a different cultural standard and different cultural background which may come into conflict.
For myself, for reasons that I indicated yesterday in a newspaper article, I think that those cultural differences, where they may cause difficulty, may be overcome if a sensible Government apply their minds in sufficient time and overcome those difficulties within the first generation of new Commonwealth immigrants. If they are overcome, the kind of prospect that has just been painted to us in the lurid terms of the right hon. Member for Down, South will never take place in this country. It need not take place. There is no reason why we should follow the American experience, unless this House and the country do not face up to the consequences of the new population, who are now our citizens and whom we can never get rid of, whatever the feelings on the Opposition side of the House. The fact is that we face up to these problems or we have trouble.
What I have been seeking to do in the last few weeks, by extending the debate more than it has been extended previously, is to try to get the country to face up to the problems in a way that is different from, and I hope more constructive than, the solutions that have been put forward in the past by the right hon. Member for Down, South. But that is not what this debate is about. This debate is not about race relations, except


for the oft-quoted aphorism that race relations are inexorably mixed up with immigration. To some extent they are, but not in the way that the hon. Member for Thanet, East meant.
One cannot say to a man who is black "We shall treat you as an equal member of this society, as a full citizen of our community", and say to him at the same time "We shall keep your wife and children waiting seven years before they can come and live with you". It is at the root of that matter that my objection to the present policies subsists. I shall come shortly to the Hawley Report that the right hon. Member for Down, South talked about, because it was on that final crunch that the differences of opinion between myself and the Home Department really came. If, however, that is the case, can we at the same time say to those who are aroused—and I do not doubt it—in the indigenous population about the scale of Commonwealth immigration that nevertheless we have to take it? The answer is "Yes"—irrespective of the views of Members of this House.
I turn, first, to the statement of principle, to which any good politician should go—to the party manifesto, the election manifesto. I quote:
At the same time within this declining figure we are honouring our obligations to the two categories of people in the Commonwealth for whom we have special responsibilities—namely the close dependent relatives of immigrants settled here lawfully before the new Act came into force and those people who, because of our imperial past, possess citizenship of this country and no other.
That was not a quotation from the Labour Party manifesto. It was from the Conservative Party manifesto in the General Election of February 1974. The reasons why that party had to accept those two inescapable commitments of this country are rooted in our past, and I have to refer to them briefly, although I hope that I shall be able to do so without too much deviation from the subject in hand.
The root of our present Commonwealth immigration story lies in the fact that in 1948, by the British Nationality Act, we did not take to ourselves a specific British citizenship similar to the citizenship of Canada, New Zealand or Australia. What we did was to persist with the illusion which had therefore always obtained that anyone anywhere in the British Empire was a British subject

and could come to the mother country whenever he wanted. That illusion had gone on for 200 years of Empire, so it was no criticism of the Government of that day that it was thought that it could continue. It began to change when people began to come here from the West Indies, with consequent reservations from some of the indigenous population.
In 1962 the Conservative Government began to cut down the right of Commonwealth citizens to come here, but they did not go to the basic root cause, which was to define our own citizenship. We kept on with Commonwealth citizenship for all British subjects having the right of entry. We had for ourselves not citizenship of the United Kingdom but citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies. It was open to anyone who was not a citizen of an independent Commonwealth country anywhere in the Empire. Then, not having done the job, it came to 1968, when in the 1968 Act the rights of citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies were cut down so that, though they were not prevented from coming, vouchers had to be obtained in order that the flow could be controlled.
In 1971 again the chance was missed. What happened was that citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies became of two kinds—first-class and second-class citizens, those who were patrial and those who were not patrial. In international law all citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies are British nationals, and in the event of a State in the world putting out our British nationals, in international law we should have an obligation to take them as a consequence of our acceptance of them as citizens.
Therefore, in relation to the citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who have no other place to go—and for all practical purposes that means the 40,000 East African Asians at present living in Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia and Malawi—we have an irremovable legal obligation to take them, and anybody who thinks that we do not and quotes the Court of Appeal decision in Thakrar should look in due course—we seem to be having a few releases of reports and I hope we shall have the European Commission's Report—at the report of the European Commission on Human Rights which reports on the 1968 Act and finds that we were in breach of the European


Convention on Human Rights, to which we are signatories and which all parties in this House are now pledged somehow to bring into English statute law.
If that be the case, we are bound to take these people. The fact of the matter is that those 40,000 people can be taken within the next two years and the debate about the Malawan immigrants who were Goans—the 200 or so who precipitated all this great row—will be over and done with in two years if the House keeps its head and we realise that that part of the problem can be solved.
The other inescapable commitment comes about because, having those citizenship rights, people came from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh in the 1960s and settled here. I mean, of course, the men. In 1968, because the Government were worried about the prevalence of male households, particularly Pakistani households where the men were bringing over their sons and children but not their wives, they insisted that in future if immigrants wanted to bring their children, they would have to bring their wives. They had to bring the whole family, and they could come if they had an entry certificate from the High Commission in one of the territories of the sub-continent.
We have accepted into our community men who have given their labour and who have contributed to our society over the past 20 years. In my view we have a moral obligation at any rate to allow them to be reunited with their wives here. But we have more than that, because a great many of them have taken citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, which is the only citizenship that we have. They are equivalent to us in law in every way, and they are therefore entitled in international law to have their wives and families join them here.
If anyone were to test that in the European Commission and before the European Court, I have no doubt that we should be found in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights by keeping out people who were the wives and children of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies settled in this country. Indeed, even the Court of Appeal in the recent Phansopkar case

decided that patrial wives had a right to come here in any event.
I say to the House, even though hon. Members do not like it, that those two inescapable commitments, which both Governments have accepted, must be fulfilled, and the argument between the two sides relates to facts: how fast can one do it, and how fast should one do it. The 40,000 East African Asians will be here within the next two years and there is little dispute between the parties about the desirability of keeping up the vouchers for them.
There is much dispute about the queue of wives and children from the subcontinent. The dispute centres partly on the rate of flow, and partly on the numbers who might have to come in. Are we, as the right hon. Member for Down, South keeps saying, baling out an ocean, or is this, as I have said on numerous occasions, a finite pool of limited numbers who will be allowed to come in and the matter will finally be settled? The answer is that they are a finite pool. The right ought, in theory in any event, to be applied only to those who were settled here before 1st January 1973 and who have the statutory right under Section 1 of the Immigration Act to bring in their wives and children under the age of 18. In those circumstances it ought to be possible, if we had all the figures, to add up the number of men who were settled here with that right, deduct from that the number of families who have already come here, and in that way arrive at the balance that ought to be the finite pool.

Mr. Nick Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm the report of 26th April in The Times in which he is reported as saying that the advice he was receiving from Home Office officials was that in their opinion the queue of dependants was never-ending?

Mr. Lyon: I shall come to that. My assessment of that balance is about 100,000, and it is interesting to note that it is not far away from the figure that was quoted by the right hon. Member for Down, South in a speech in January when he gave an estimate taken in 1967 of about 250,000 and knocked off 150,000 who have come since. It is indicative of the finiteness of that pool that there is


already a slowing down in applications in India, in Delhi, where one would expect a slowing down to be met first. It is clear from those signs, which are not unmistakable—I accept that—that there may be something in the thesis that I have put to the House.
Against the day-to-day working of both the immigration department at Croydon and the High Commissions in the territories concerned that overwhelming fact does not necessarily appear from the statistics, because day in and day out they are dealing with applications that come before them and that seem to be never ending. It is significant that the Hawley Report says:
All the Heads of Mission and Posts are convinced that this assumption is wrong and I share their view.
It goes on:
If they and the 70 odd United Kingdom-based officers engaged on immigration considered that there was an end in sight, there would be less uneasiness felt about pushing through dependants cases with increased despatch.
The fact of the matter is that even the officials themselves recognise that if the pool is finite there is real sense in getting rid of that pool as quickly as possible.
Therefore, is it finite? As I have said, by definition it must be, because the man settled in this country with a right to bring in their wives and children—and very few new male heads of households are allowed in from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh—will, in the usual circumstances, have one wife and family. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) referred to the possibility of a Muslim bringing in two wives. Although that possibility exists, experience has shown that very few Pakistanis bring in more than one wife. Therefore, we are talking about one woman and one set of children for each of the people who have come in.
In Delhi the increase in the queue is already drying up. In Pakistan and Bangladesh, where the wave of immigrants was later than that from India and from where husbands began to bring in their wives and children later, the flow has not yet begun to show signs of drying up. But no wonder: each year since 1968, until I went out to the subcontinent last year, the number of applications has dropped. But the number of

cases that were processed dropped even more. The 26,000 cases dealt with in 1969 dropped to about 13,000 in 1974 even though the number of officers increased in the meantime. As a result, the queue grew longer and longer even though fewer people were applying to come.
When I was there in 1975, there were 16,000 applications, representing about 32,000 dependants. Half of those have now been dealt with but, as a result of the publicity given to my visit, applications have increased both in Pakistan and Bangladesh because people now expect that they may get to their husbands rather more quickly than they thought they could before. By bringing down the delay time from seven years in Dacca to something like 18 months to two years, it is possible to give greater help to those who want to be reunited with their husbands.

Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lyon: No, I am sorry. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
In these circumstances, because applications have increased in 1975 and the early months of 1976, it looks as though the pool will have no end. But if one takes the figure as about 100,000, and compares it with the statistics, one finds that, even if the applications have increased as much as they have, they are still coming from a pool which is still no greater than about 100,000.

Mr. Bugden: rose—

Mr. Lyon: I am sorry; I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
What is deducible from the statistics contained in the census figures of 1971 is that this is about the right figure. If we have 100,000 wives and children under the age of 18 from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh there is no immediate increase in our unemployment queues although there may be a charge upon our schools. I should emphasise that there is not so much a charge upon our housing because, on the whole, Asians tend not to go on the local authority housing list, but to buy their own houses. These men normally have houses available for their wives and children. If that is the scale of the problem, is it not


better to get it over and done with quickly, within the next few years, rather than have it drag on for years and years?
The number of people accepted last year, within the overall figure of about 35,000 admitted for settlement on arrival, was about 15,000 wives and children from the sub-continent. If we continue at that kind of rate it will be about eight or nine years before they have come in. If this debate is to be repeated every year for eight or nine years, who can doubt that the consequences for race relations in this country will be bad? It is better that we face up to the task now. If there is doubt about the pool, or the size or finiteness of it, let us end the doubt by opening a register for the sponsors.
We should say to those who want to bring in their wives and children from the sub-continent that they should put their names on that register if they have been admitted for settlement into this country before 1st January 1973. We should tell them they will be allowed to bring over their wives and children in due course. When that register has been assembled, and if the House thought the figure was too high, we could issue a quota, as we have with the United Kingdom passport holders, and allow them to bring their wives and children over according to that quota.
What we should not do is continue with the present system of entry certificate verification. Having looked at the system closely, I am left with no real confidence that the entry certificate officers manage to decide whether a person is a bogus applicant. Too many cases which I investigated with the people themselves, in the presence of the entry certificate officers, turned out to be genuine wives who had been turned down by the High Commission and who were still marooned out there while their husbands were working in this country.
In one case we actually arrived at a time when a man who had returned from England on a short holiday was building a house for his wife and children whom the British High Commission alleged not to be his wife and family. On another occasion I met a wife in a village who took me back to her home and showed me, printed in mosaic over the fireplace, the name of her husband, whom the Bri-

tish High Commission alleged not to be her husband.
If the population of this country knew what went on in the cases which are dealt with by the British High Commission in the sub-continent, they would regard it as a national disgrace. It would never have been allowed to continue as long as it has but for the fact that these people are black rather than white. Just imagine the row there would have been if over 100,000 people waiting to come here had been the wives and children of husbands who were white! We know that there is the possibility in the near future that 150,000 white Rhodesians might want to come back to the United Kingdom. Does anyone think they would be kept waiting for seven years while we verify each case? Of course not. If we are to have justice, we should have it for blacks as well as whites.
I have almost used up my time but there are a number of issues I should like to mention before I sit down. The first is the question of the net balance. We calculate carefully the number of people who come into this country. In times past, immigration surveys have been preoccupied with the problem of those who manage to get in and have not been concerned so much with those going out. The net migration figures taken from landings and embarkations have been in existence for about 50 years—long before large-scale immigration into this country. They have been used simply as an indication of passage and movement for the purpose of organisation of the ports. No one has paid a great deal of attention to them. They are markedly unreliable in giving any kind of picture of net immigration into this country.
The only sensible way to get this figure is to count the number of people who have been accepted for settlement under any of the heads of those who are coming in. We have clear, detailed, reliable statistics for that. If anybody disagrees with that assumption and thinks that we are seeking to keep something from the prying eyes of the right hon. Member for Down, South, just let him do the sums for all Commonwealth migrants in the period between the census of 1971 and the beginning of 1975. It will be found that there 30,000 more white Commonwealth people left this country than existed here, according to the 1971 cen-


sus. Of course that is ludicrous, because the statistics are unreliable.
However, if we look more closely at the figures on which the right hon. Member for Down, South focused attention, those for the black Commonwealth, we see that they show a sudden jump between 1972 and 1973. In 1972, there was an outward flow, according to the net migration figures, of 23,000. Curious that those overstayers and illegal immigrants should have gone out in such numbers! In the following year—the year for which the right hon. Gentleman always settles when there was a mistake in the count at London Airport—the increase under the revised estimate was 52,000 coming in.
Can it really be said that suddenly, in one year, there was a net inflow of about 50,000 overstayers—in that one year? Why that year? That was the year when the Conservative Government were being as strict and as rigid as the hon. Member for Thanet, East wanted them to be. It was the year before the "softie" Minister of State at the Home Office came in. Yet there were 53,000 overstayers in that year.
If we make the same kind of deductions as the right hon. Member for Down, South makes, in the last three years there would have been 150,000 overstayers from the new Commonwealth in this country. That is the size of a town like Bolton. We know, because the right hon. Gentleman is always telling us, that there are only a few areas of this country where these people settle. That is true—fewer than about 20 areas. If 150,000 people had suddenly, in three years, been distributed around 20 areas, our services would soon have known it.
The net migration figures are unreliable for any calculations of this kind. They could become reliable if we changed the system, as we have done, so that all non-patrials filled in a card when they came in and a card when they went out and we related the landing card to the embarkation card of the same person.
There are those who argue that we could gain even from the cold statistics if we could get some picture of net trends over a period, but if there was a sudden upsurge, as there was in 1973, of visitors and students, that would wipe out any apparent effect of the net migration figure. That number of visitors or of students is

so unplanned that it cannot be related to the net migration figure unless one can find a specific card of a specific person showing whether he had entered or left. We could do that if we increased our checks and put all those cards on to a computer. There is no way of dealing with those cards other than by computerisation.
The next point which arose was the question of illegality itself. The number of people who come here illegally, not through immigration control, is extremely small. No one doubts that there are some. The figures that the hon. Member for Thanet, East suggested are not unknown to the Home Office Immigration Department, which works closely with the police in any event, but they must be speculative and no one knows for certain because no one can count the number of illegal immigrants.
But if it is really suggested that there is a great number, why is it that when we declared an amnesty which allowed those who came in before 1973 to come forward and regularise their position, so far only 2,200 people have come forward? The people in the communities concerned know that this is available to them and whether they can come forward or not. But only 2,200 have applied.
Then again, the Conservative Government decided in 1971 not to remove anyone who had been here for more than five years. The overstayer who has been here for more than five years can have his conditions removed. Nevertheless, the number of people who have come forward to have their conditions removed has never been more than 2,000 in any one of the last two years. Therefore, the suggestion that there is some great pool of illegals or overstayers in this country is unrealistic when one considers the total figures. It is unrealistic when one considers the calls on our social services or our housing queues by people from the new Commonwealth. Those statistics generally relate to the official figures of those who come in for resettlement and not to some hidden pool, which is the myth which has been sedulously put forward.
The last point that I wish to deal with is the revocation of conditions. It is true that immigration into this country for settlement has increased substantially in the last two years if one includes the figures for revocation, in addition to the


figures for admission. The figures for admission have risen very little indeed—from about 25,000 to about 35,000. But the substantial increase came in 1974, when the revocation figure jumped by about 10,000. It did so for two reasons. The first is the one that I have described. People who had been here for more than five years, albeit illegally, could not be deported. Their conditions were simply extended and they did not count for settlement.
But that meant that their position was never regularised and that they were in some difficulties if they ever left the country. They could not be deported, yet in one sense they were not settled. In 1974 we abandoned that system and accepted that, because they could not be sent back, they should be allowed to settle so that they would come into the settlement figures. I stress that no more people were allowed in as a result of that change of policy then would have been if we had followed the policy of our predecessors. The people were here and they could not be sent back. All that happened was that there was a sudden quirk in the figures. That was part of the reason for the extra 10,000.
The other part of the reason was the decision about marriage. We have now allowed into this country people who are married to people settled here if those settled here are men. They always could bring in their wives, but women were not allowed to bring in their husbands if they had married outside this country. We were put under enormous pressure to make that change in the summer of 1974 by hon. Members on both sides, by the Press and by public opinion, who all thought that it was disgraceful that a man should not be allowed to live with his wife in the country in which she had been born.
I well remember our debate on that change, when no vote was forced by the Opposition and when every Opposition Member who spoke supported our view that the change should be made. But I warned them at the time that, inevitably, there would be some increase in the number of immigrants, particularly the number of immigrants from the Indian subcontinent, who would benefit as a result of the change.
Those figures are now available. They show, not surprisingly, that the num-

ber of men who have come for marriage has increased, but no more than the number of women who were coming in for marriage before 1974. There has been a balancing mechanism. The number of men is roughly equivalent to the number of women coming in for settlement. Why should it not be so? Why should it be thought unrealistic that we should allow people to come here for marriage when someone who has settled here wants to be married? Every civilised immigration policy in the world allows people who are settled in their country to marry outside their borders and to bring their wives or husbands back into the country.
For that reason, we allowed it, but we knew that, unlike the two finite commitments to which I referred earlier, this commitment would continue for as long as people wanted to marry outside this country but that the numbers involved would always be relatively limited. There were about 12,000 in 1974, and there might be slightly more in 1975, but it is well within the capacity of this country to absorb them.
I end as I began. We have certain inescapable commitments which would have to be met by whatever Government ran this country and they would be better met in the near future so that those who must come can settle when their children are young so that the children can absorb more of the education of this country. When those two inescapable commitments have been met, the number coming in for permanent settlement will have been reduced to a very small trickle and will be well within the capacity of this country to manage.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Whilst the question of the number of immigrants admitted to Britain, whether legally or illegally, is of crucial importance, I should like to focus on the special difficulties which face first generation children of immigrants now living in Britain, especially in the West Indian community. The problems which I shall mention are not only of concern to education and social service authorities but are of increasing anxiety to the whole West Indian population. Although these problems are shared by black children from other minority groups, it is appropriate to single out the West Indian community because there are more West


Indian children here than children from other minority groups other than Asians.
Let us consider the educational standards of the West Indian child in school. Far too high a percentage of West Indian children are in the remedial departments in proportion to the West Indian population of the area. They are in the remedial departments because they are under-functioning and, not surprisingly, the number of them passing GCE O and A levels is miserably small. As a result of their under-functioning, West Indian children tend to hold themselves in low regard. There is also an abnormally high number of West Indian children in special schools for the educationally subnormal.
The reason for this under-performance is sometimes explained away by highlighting the serious behavioural problems which are evident in a high proportion of adolescent West Indians. The behaviour can sometimes result in expulsion from school and, as a result, many are out of school for long periods. Schools just do not want to take very difficult children any longer and schools for maladjusted children are short of places. The behavioural problems to which I refer may involve refusal to accept any discipline, senseless violence either to their peers or to staff, verbal or physical aggression, delinquency or truancy.
It is against this backcloth that one must be concerned with the abnormally high proportion of children living in local authority children's homes. These children are received into care for many reasons. They may have been abandoned by their mother, frequently on her own in this country and without help from her extended family back home. They may feel alienated, unable to come to terms with life in a new family unit with their parents remarried and with step-brothers and sisters. Inevitably, it is the adolescent child in the new Commonwealth country rather than the parent here who has initiated his coming to Britain, and he may not have seen his mother or father for 10 to 15 years.

Mr. John Stokes: I know well my hon. Friend's concern for the poor, the ill and the disabled and those who are the casualties of life, not only among West Indians, but among his own compatriots.

However, is it not a fact that the West Indian people are needed in their own country? Would it not be better for them and the children to return to the West Indies than to remain here?

Mr. Steen: I believe that greater incentives need to be given by the Government to help the skilled and qualified to go back to their own countries, but it should be based on a slightly different criterion. It should be based on the fact that they are needed in their country to maintain their independence. My hon. Friend has raised an important point, but probably the House has lost the thread of my argument.
I was referring to the number of children in care. Many of them may be flouting the rules imposed by their strict parent and find themselves in trouble at home. Rather than face the subsequent beatings, they run away. Termed "at risk" by the social services department, they are brought into care.
Many West Indian adolescents view children's homes as nice friendly places where the rules are lax and pocket money more regular than at home. For a good number of adolescents, reception into care is seen as a direct undermining of parental authority which, in many cases, is not unreasonable in its demands, though somewhat authoritarian by current British standards. The education welfare services tell us that there is now a wide West Indian sub-culture made up of girls who flout parental authority in the knowledge that they might enjoy a better life in a reception centre and children's home at considerable cost to the taxpayer.
Although the disciplinary pattern in West Indian families is more punitive, it does not necessarily denote either lack of caring or gross cruelty. Often the punishment is meted out by the parent in good faith. It is therefore doubtful whether by imposing our standards on the West Indian community with regard to child-rearing we are doing anything other than harm. It is my view that, by placing children into institutional care and not insisting that the West Indian community looks after its own, we are building up further problems which are exploding every time these children reach adulthood.
Some hon. Members may ask why the sociological, historical and cultural background of the West Indian is of any relevance when viewing the problems facing the West Indian community in Britain today. Those who ask the question fail to comprehend the differences in both culture and background between living in Britain and living in the West Indies. Until we start to appreciate that this is at the root of the problems, relations will not start to improve. The problems manifest today are the same as those in the 1960s. Yet the Government seem to be rigid in their attitude and there is little hope for children from alien cultures to rebalance their basic disadvantage.
Take, for example, the survey carried out by the Inner London Education Authority some years ago. What has happened since is discovered that black children's reading age was at least one year behind that of white children? Has ILEA reallocated its £400 million to help overcome language problems? For most West Indians, English is their second language and the English they speak is different from ours—different meaning in words, different syntax, different grammar. The Bengalese children in Tower Hamlets today suffer an enormous language disadvantage. In many Asian communities English is the first language and, with additional coaching, problems can be overcome, but for the West Indians and many other minority groups the whole structure of the curriculum, its content and materials, needs to be re-geared. We are dealing no longer with white Anglo-Saxon children but with black children with a different history and from a different culture.
The problem is deeply aggravated by the total absence of information about where extra help is needed and the nature of that help. Whereas formerly Form 71 asked schools to record the birth place of children or parents if they had been in Britain for less than 10 years—and this helped to give some indication as to where the problems were—when it was scrapped nothing took its place. The Department of Education and Science has taken up no alternative means of collecting information on the language needs of children and how well black/white youngsters perform. It is grossly negli-

gent that when the DES dropped Form 71 it did not insist that local authorities provided alternative information. As a result, West Indian and other black minority groups are at a severe disadvantage as they are expected to compete with white children who come from an entirely different cultural background and who understand English in a different way.
There is no information about the literacy, numeracy or creative work of minority groups. We do not know the proportion of minority group children who, at the age of 12, have a reading age two years behind their chronological age. The Government have singularly failed to improve the quality of our information, and this in turn has allowed them to avoid taking action.
Should we not call a halt to the enthusiasm of social workers to place black children in care? Could not greater efforts be made to find black foster parents, and could not they try to get more people to adopt black children? Instead of advertising in The Times, I wonder how many local authorities advertise for foster parents in the West Indian World, and how many social workers go to the Pentecostal Church.
Local authorities fail to show any spark of imagination or originality. It is our approach to minorities in the community which needs a radical alteration. There are great resources in the minority groups. An example is the organisation known as Soul Kids, which tries to make black parents aware of the responsibility to adopt and foster. There are the Saturday schools and supplementary school programmes financed by West Indian parents themselves by which they pay teachers out of school to help their children gain a mastery of English. We should involve black mothers in infant welfare clinics and get black doctors to help them with their problems. We should make money available under the urban aid programme to involve black parents in playgroups.
The problems facing the teaching staff in schools will get worse and worse unless this is done; the number of children in care will increase; the social dislocation of the young adolescent will continue so long as the West Indian community and their cultural backgrounds are not acknowledged. No wonder there are such


cries about the continued flow of dependants into this country, since each wave aggravates the already complex issues which I have tried to outline in this short speech.
Until we recognise the potential contribution each minority culture makes to our multi-racial society, and so long as we refuse to get the correct information, we cannot hope to get relationships with the black community right. Nor can we help each of the cultures develop until we adopt a self-help approach. Only in this way will a new kind of trust develop between minority groups and the British people. The continued flow of dependants year by year from the West Indies and other countries merely increases anxiety and apprehension and damages the prospects of better race relations.

5.32 p.m.

Miss Joan Lestor: Had this debate started in a different way, I should have been very happy to have followed some of the issues that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) has just raised. Unhappily, the debate started in a very different way and I want to take up one or two of the points which were made by the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Atiken) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish).
Two observations were very worrying. First, both said that the subjects of immigration and race were not raised in this country, that they were kept quiet in the House of Commons, and that pressure was put on the hon. Gentleman not to raise them. I was under the impression that the Race Relations Bill was in the process of going through the House—

Mr. Aitken: If I may put the hon. Lady's mind at rest, there has been no pressure from official or unofficial sources.

Miss Lestor: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that clear. It was a pity that he did not make it clear when the allegation was made earlier. However, I am very glad that he has made it dear now, and that is why I raised the matter.
It is true that we have a Race Relations Bill going through the House. I was not aware that that Bill was being kept quiet or that the public were being kept out

of the deliberations in Committee. So the accusation that the House has deliberately avoided discussing the issue is nonsense, and everybody knows it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey, who often speaks to us as a Christian, made certain comments that rather worried me. I know that his ancestors are Southern Irish. His point was that, even though the Southern Irish are his kith and kin, he would keep them out, too. This was rather like the statement made by the hon. Gentleman that many black immigrants take the same view—that we should have no more black immigrants here.
I do not want to get involved in the numbers game, but I am not convinced by anyone who attempts to argue "It is all right for me, but to the hell with the rest." My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey talked about the way people were coming into his constituency and the way that people there felt. The population of London is declining. If I may just make mention of the little difficulty that I had with my own Front Bench, its argument was to the effect that the population was falling and, therefore, we did not need more teachers. The statement that the difficulties in Bermondsey are caused by the influx of black people there when the population there is falling is a misrepresentation of the present position. I always find the question of numbers very difficult, because nobody is ever able to tell me how many people are actually leaving Britain of those who came here from abroad, whether they are leaving for the country of origin, or for other countries.
The hon. Member for Thanet, East said that qualified people were leaving Britain because of high taxation, immigration, and other factors. He said that that was disastrous because we needed such people. This is exactly what Britain has done to the countries from which she has taken immigrants. We have taken in the qualified people. The first restriction this country applied was to stop unqualified people from coming in.
When the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who is not here, of course, was Minister of Health, he brought into this country—I do not blame him for this or condemn it—black doctors and black nurses to sustain the


National Health Service. The black children about whom the right hon. Gentleman complains as being born in this country are the children of the people whom he himself brought in. He cannot have it both ways. A person who at one time says "We need qualified people from abroad to help to sustain certain of our services" can hardly ask them to have themselves sterilised when they get here, or to promise never to produce children when they are here, because that is not the way that things work.
I wonder whether those who say that the numbers of people coming in make it worse for the black children who are here already stop to think of the effect of some of their words on the black children who have been born here and brought up in Britain but who are always regarded by them as non-belongers. A white immigrant is not recognised as an immigrant and is not seen as an immigrant. The people of whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey spoke as being in and around his constituency are identifiable because of their colour. Someone like myself who was born in Canada and who came here as a child is not identifiable as an immigrant and is not considered to be one.
Those who argue so much about immigration and talk about wanting to assimilate black children born here into our culture should remember that some of the emotive words spoken by some of their colleagues have just the opposite effect. After all, their colleagues tell those youngsters that they do not belong and that they are not wanted; they thus alienate them from the very processes of integration. We want to see such youngsters accepted in Britain and integrated.
At the very time that the House of Commons was debating the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill in 1962 London Transport was recruiting workers in Barbados. That was because we did not have sufficient people here to run London Transport. In view of that, it ill-behoves people to say 15 years later that there are too many such people here and that they and their children should be sent back.
My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) went into some detail about

the number of people who are likely to come into Britain, about the number of relatives, and about the whole pattern of immigration. The right hon. Member for Down, South talked about the undesirability of relations coming in, of more people coming in. The case that my hon. Friend the Member for York has always tried to make has been that it adds to the stability of an immigrant community to have relations here, that it does not help the stability of an immigrant community if men have to wait, say, four to seven years for their wives and children to be admitted.
Some who have spoken in this debate have implied—I am told that the country feels this, too—that relatives are admitted into Britain with comparative ease. I invite anyone who takes that view to come to my advice bureau in a Friday afternoon and see what happens. I encounter people who, for a variety of reasons, cannot provide documentary evidence of their marriage or of the birth of their children, even though we know that the children were born to them, merely because in the years when their children were born or when they married there was no system of documentation in their country. The statement that it is so simple to allow one's family to come here is not true, and any Member who has an immigrant community in his constituency knows that it is not true.
I do not want to discuss illegal immigation because I do not have facts and figures. I accept that there is illegal immigration. I accept that some of the immigrant population exploit many coloured people who wish to come into this country, and that they behave in an undesirable manner. But never would I condemn the majority of immigrants because of the activities of a minority.
The language in which some of these arguments are advanced gives the impression to many people who do not have as many of the facts as some of us do that this is a condemnation of the immigrant community at large. Every time they see a face which is identifiable by colour, they say "Is he here legally or illegally?" Many people deliberately try to create and foster this feeling.
The subject of the Malawi Asians was raised a little earlier. It has been said that they sparked off some of the alleged feeling about immigration. My right


hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey said that it was not our fault and asked why we should get involved in this problem. Apart from international law, to which reference has already been made, and apart from guarantees which have been given, anybody who knows anything about the rôle of Britain in Africa and our connection with Asian immigration knows that we have an involvement with this situation. If we did not, we should not be discussing whether those people to whom we gave British passports in certain historical circumstances have the right to come here. It is because of history that this situation arose in the first place.
Many people have referred to the growing number of black people having children in this country. Many seem to fear this, and I have never understood why. Two out of every five black people in Britain were born in Britain.

Mr. Stokes: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Lestor: No. I shall not give way for the moment. Before long, in terms of generations, the majority of black people in this country will have been born here. I believe that this fact is crucial to the manner in which we handle race relations and to how the situation is moulded in future.
When people argue about the number of black people born here and the alienation of culture, they are doing the very thing of which they complain. If one says to people who are born here "You do not belong. You should not be here. There are too many of you here. We should like to provide incentives for you to go back.", instead of encouraging integration and the assimilation of coloured Britons, one pushes them back into a situation in which they feel they do not belong, and when they feel that they do not belong and behave accordingly, people complain about that.
When people say "We need stricter control. Let us provide incentives for people to go back.", I wonder where this argument takes them. Some years ago we were discussing voluntary repatriation. Voluntary repatriation is a contradiction. If hon. Members want black people to return home—and I presume that by "home" they mean the country from

which those people came, leaving out of account those who were born in this country—the incentives which would have to be offered to persuade those people to return would be very great indeed. In fact, I very much doubt whether the Government would entertain it or could afford it.
People who encourage voluntary repatriation really mean compulsory repatriation. They want to send people back. Then they talk about people who, having come to this country, will not assimilate themselves into our culture. Following the logic of that argument, where do we go from there? To talk about too many people being born in this country implies sterilisation.
I have always believed—indeed, I have said this before—that what went wrong with immigration was that the subject of immigration was only ever discussed in this House in the context of colour. It was never discussed within the context of immigration as a whole. Today the argument still takes place within the context of colour. Our connection with the EEC and mobility of labour has not been mentioned today. The subject is still discussed within the context of colour, and that has always been wrong.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: The hon. Lady has come right back to the point on which I tried to interrupt her earlier. She said that she had come from an immigrant background.

Miss Lestor: I did not. I was born here.

Mr. Goodhew: At least the hon. Lady's family were immigrants. The hon. Lady has referred to the colour and pigmentation of skin. Surely she understands that this is one of the difficulties. If an area is inundated with people who are obviously from another ethnic origin, this is what causes discrimination where it did not occur before. Nobody has argued about Asians in Paddington—

Miss Lestor: Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Goodhew: I have the Floor. [Interruption.] I am trying to be brief, but with everybody interrupting me it is difficult. Where there are people who are identifiable as immigrants, it makes it much more difficult. That is where the control must be much more sensitive.

Miss Lestor: The hon. Gentleman has said exactly what many other people are saying. He has said that it is easier, better and more desirable to have white immigrants in this country than black immigrants. He said that the ethnic differences make it far harder for coloured people to assimilate. Yet in all the years when I have been involved in debates on immigration I have heard nothing said about black immigrants which was not said about the Welsh in Slough or the Jews in London.
When I say that the difference is one of colour, the point is that the identifying of immigrants with colour has led many people to believe that every black face belongs to an immigrant and that only immigrants are black. That is not true. I gave the Floor to the hon. Gentleman and I gave him time to make his point. What he said does not help the situation when we are dealing with the fact that large numbers of people in this country, including children born in this country, are black and their children will be black. That will be the cultural pattern of this island for as long as any of us and our children and their children are going to be here.
Whatever is behind the raising of this subject in the House today, whatever comes out of the debate in terms of immigration control, is an argument for another time. But I am convinced that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when people say that those who happen to have a skin of a different colour are not acceptable in this country: they fulfil their own prophecy.
I agree with one or two of the remarks of the hon. Member for Wavertree. When there is a problem about different cultures and deprivation which applies to black and white alike in this country, it is a question of money, of resources, and of ensuring that as far as possible we provide equal opportunities for all those involved. I thought that that was what the Conservative Party's manifesto was about; I thought that it was what the Race Relations Bill was about.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: It is a pity that in this short debate the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) should have taken 41 minutes to address us—not, if I may say so, that he has

been with us very much since then. I regret that the way the debate has gone means that so few hon. Members will be able to take part.
I can distil the speech of the hon. Member in two themes. First, he wanted to admit more immigrants faster than even the Home Secretary and the Home Office could stomach—and that is quite a reputation to have acquired—and he sought to give us the impression, in a constantly-recurring phrase, that the rate of immigration was well within the capacity of the country to absorb, although why it should be thought that we have some divine duty to absorb all kinds of streams of immigrants into the most crowded country in the world I do not know; secondly, I suppose his reason was that he thought that we ought to and had to. I want to address myself to those points.
I point out, in deference to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), that I have made many speeches and written many articles about this subject but I have never blamed the immigrants. I do not blame them at all—they have acted sensibly. I blame British Governments past and present for letting them in.
We do not debate this subject enough. We owe it to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) for bringing the subject before us on a Private Member's motion. When did we last have a debate on race relations? We used to have an annual debate under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, but it was taken out of there and since then we are dependent on a private Member's luck in the Ballot and his will to bring forward this not very popular subject in the House.
The hon. Member for York sought to justify his acceleration of immigration. It has been very marked—10,000 on those admitted for settlement per annum, 10,000 more with the removal of the time limit, pumping the figure up to an admitted 50,000 or more a year. But the hon. Gentleman says that that is all right because the figure is finite.
This subject was debated in the House in January of last year, although not at an hour which made it available to most of us. That debate took place at 5.30 a.m. on the Consolidated Fund Bill. The


hon. Member for York answered the debate. His argument was:
If it is said that the rate at which we are discharging our residual commitment … should be increased, that does not mean that any more people will come into the country. It simply means that the commitment will be extinguished more quickly.
He was asked what was the extent of the commitment and how many people were involved. He replied:
I cannot say anything about the numbers question. All kinds of possibilities may occur to change the extent of the commitments before it is actually undertaken. I do not intend to say anything about numbers.
The hon. Gentleman repeated that later.
I therefore found it a little surprising that he was so confident in his speech today about numbers, considering that he had refused twice from the Dispatch Box a few months ago to say anything about numbers, emphasising that the nature of the commitment could change unpredictably before the discharge of it actually arose. That is not a very encouraging thought for someone who is asked to rely upon the finality of the commitment.
Of course, we have had other assurances on this subject from the hon. Gentleman. In that same debate he said:
By and large, male immigration stopped when the 1965 White Paper considerably reduced the number of work vouchers."—[Official Report, 23rd January 1975; Vol. 884. c. 2010 and 2019.]
Since 1965, at least 200,000 male immigrants from the new Commonwealth have come into this country. Apparently, that is what the hon. Member calls "stopping". Again, that does not exactly encourage us.
The truth is that all through the years we have had these watertight assurances about the decline in immigration, and how it was a finite commitment which was gradually being worked off. Right the way through we have been told that. I must not at this stage quote any more, but I have with me quotations to that effect. But no such thing has happened.
In the decade from 1961 to 1971, the average rate of immigrant inflow for settlement was 62,500—that is not going on the gross movement figure but working from the Home Office figures. That does not just mean that in those 10 years we had 625,000 extra immigrants,

because, of course, we also had the natural increase for that period as well. It would be surprising if the immigrant population—using the term in its broadest sense—did not increase by a million in those 10 years; it must have done.
This is how we have gone on, and I understand why the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said that enough is enough. It is the numbers game. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough deprecates the numbers game, but it is all about numbers. We used to have Commonwealth immigration before the 1950s. It ran at about 200 or 300 a year, and no one cared or talked about it—indeed, one may say that no one knew about it. But when the hundreds became thousands and the thousands became tens of thousands, and those tens of thousands crept up to a hundred thousand and went up ultimately to 160,000, people began to say "You have to do something about immigration."
I do not know what the hon. Member for York was saying in 1961–62 but I remember what I said and what other people were saying.

Mr. A. J. Beith: What did they say?

Mr. Bell: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has a clean slate in this respect—he was not here then. But I remember what the then Liberal Party spokesman said when he spoke on behalf of the Liberal Party when the Commonwealth Immigrants Act was going through the House. He said that every British subject in the world—all 600 million of them—had just as much right to come and live here as any hon. Member of this House or any other person in Britain. It was not a proposition in law—it was a moral and political proposition—and the Liberal Party voted against the Bill and thereafter against its annual renewal.
At one of those annual renewals, the Liberal spokesman called it the most evil Bill ever presented to Parliament. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed should not identify himself with that view. If he does, he will be very unwise. This was not then a matter of the so-called passport holders—it was the first attempt to control immigration at all.
I return now to the hon. Member for York and this business about British passports. He must know that that is a lot of rubbish. He said that in 1968 for the first time we established two kinds of United Kingdom and Colonies citizenship—first and second-class. Does not he know that that is wrong?
In 1961 our problem, as he rightly said, was immigration from the Crown colonies—Barbados, Jamaica and so on. That is where they were coming from. It would have been useless to pass an Act saying that those holding the citizenship of the independent Commonwealth countries could not come in. At that time, they were not particularly trying to do so.
The first thing that we did in this connection in the 1962 Act was to draw a distinguishing line through the single citizenship of United Kingdom and Colonies. That is what the Act is about. We made some citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies subject to immigration control, and that included all the East African Indians. We did it by definition, in Section 1, I think. There had to be a definition because we were all the same kind of citizen. Where would we get our passport—from Petty France—the London Government—or from a colonial Government? Anyone getting it from a colonial Government was subject to control. Anyone getting it in London was not subject to control. That was all.
That is how passports come into this question. Nobody was given British passports. It is a lot of absolute rhetorical rubbish to say so. That measure worked. The Liberals frothed at the mouth, and most Labour Members did so, too.
Then Kenya got its independence. People could not get their United Kingdom and Colonies passports from the colonial Government because there was not one any longer. They could only get them from the British High Commisioner, who represented the London Government.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyons: The hon. and learned Gentleman, as a Queen's Counsel, knows perfectly well that we did not give United Kingdom passports to non-citizens. They could only get a United Kingdom passport because they were citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

Mr. Bell: I am not sure what was the purpose of that utterly fatuous intervention. Of course they got them because they were United Kingdom and Colonies citizens, but as United Kingdom and Colonies citizens they had been subject to immigration control from the time of the 1962 Act coming into force. The only way they came out of control was by going to the High Commissioner in Kampala or Nairobi who is an official of the home Government which let them through the definition in the 1962 Act. The hon. Member's right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister introduced a Bill in 1968 to plug that hole.
If the hon. Gentleman is worried about moral attitudes on this question, he should read the Second Reading speech of the present Prime Minister when introducing the 1968 Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, in which he said that the Government were only putting back the 1962 arrangement. That was always the intention. They meant to exempt from immigration control only those who had a long connection residential or ancestral—that is a terrible word—with the United Kingdom.
It was therefore put back to where it was before, and they have been subject to immigration control ever since. What is all this nonsense about waving a United Kingdom passport and coming in? None of them can come in by right of simply waving a United Kingdom passport. It is absolute nonsense. They can only come in, in each and every case, by the permission of the Home Secretary, just as though they were aliens.

Mr. Powell: My hon. and learned Friend was about to help me in my speech, but it was not necessary. Perhaps he will permit me to interpolate into his speech the reminder that the then Conservative Prime Minister said:
At the time of the independence of the former British East African Territories, no specific undertakings were made either about the entry of East African Asians into the United Kingdom or about retention of citizenship … The grant of a United Kingdom passport does not in itself confer a citizenship or other status on the holder."—[Official Report, 23rd October 1972; Vol. 843, c. 172.]

Mr. Bell: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. Everything he says is true. Although I already knew it I would not, through pressure of time, have felt entitled to say it, but since he has kindly


done it for me, that makes it all right. It is absolutely true.
Lord Duncan Sandys, in the Second Reading debate on the 1968 Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, said in express terms that no undertaking whatever was given to these people
either in public or in private."—[Official Report, 27th February 1968; Vol. 759, c. 1274.]
It is perfectly clear, from the debate on the Bill dealing with the independence of Kenya, that the only undertaking given was that if the white settlers in Kenya took local citizenship and later wanted to come home and go somewhere else, they could re-acquire their United Kingdom citizenship without a residential qualification.

Mr. Lane: May I remind the House of the contrary view taken not only by the late Mr. lain Macleod but by Lord Carr, Lord Hailsham and Lord Home?

Mr. Bell: Not, I think, Lord Home. As to the late Mr. lain Macleod, he wrote an open letter to Duncan Sandys in the Spectator. I have read it. The letter, with respect to him, is declamatory—he asserts things—but nowhere does he say what the undertaking was, or who gave it to whom. Nobody, when challenged, is able to tell us who gave it to whom, whether it was in writing or by word of mouth, or where or how it was done. It was a very funny undertaking. As for the Second Reading debate on the Kenya Independence Bill, exactly the opposite impression is conveyed to any person reading it.
There is no international law requiring us to take these people. This is not the home country of these East African traders. They have never been here. They cannot speak English. Their home country is India. India is willing to take them. India has never refused to take them.
One of my hon. Friends put down a Question to the Foreign Office. He asked
whether any restriction is imposed on citizens of the United Kingdom of Indian descent who desire to settle in India."—[Official Report, 28th April 1976; Vol. 910, c. 113.]
The Foreign Office Minister said that Her Majesty's Government were not aware of there being any difficulties in regard to such people settling in India.
Even if they are not technically citizens of India under the post-independence law,

they can be admitted as residents, and after four years of good conduct they can be granted citizenship. Indian citizenship has not been refused by India. These people are not refugees. They come here because they like England better than India. We are incredible mutts to admit them on this scale, and it is time we stopped doing it.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. William Whitelaw: I apologise to those hon. Gentlemen on both sides who have not been able to get into this short debate. I have given up some of the time that I felt I needed. I shall be brief, and I hope I may be allowed to say that, other than in very exceptional circumstances, it would be wrong for me to give way, in view of the time factor.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) on initiating an important and topical debate. He has been wise to base it on a non-controversial motion, because he has thereby enabled the House to debate some emotional issues in what I might describe as a comparatively calm atmosphere. As time is short, I shall start by dealing briefly with that part of his motion and his speech dealing with emigration.
No one can be in any doubt that, as a result of the Government's Socialist policies, many of those in our society who have worked hard to acquire professional qualifications or craft skills feel frustrated and deserted. They have seen their differentials eroded and their standard of life reduced compared with those far less qualified than themselves and with much less responsibility. As a result, in increasing numbers they are being attracted by better conditions overseas. I hope that this debate will impress upon the Government once again the sheer folly that it would be for us as a nation to ignore this potentially damaging situation.
But, naturally, most hon. Members have concentrated on the other part of my hon. Friend's motion concerning immigration. It is vital that we in this House discuss the closely-linked problems of immigration from the new Commonwealth and race relations, and I say quite unashamedly that they are closely linked. This debate—and others which,


I hope, will follow it—gives us a chance to show that we appreciate genuine anxieties and that we shall not avoid the subject because it is delicate or difficult.
Perhaps I might say to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that he knows the position that I have taken consistently since assuming responsibility for these matters on behalf of the Opposition. During the Second Reading debate on the Race Relations Bill, I said that I believed that these matters should be debated. I believe that they should be debated continually. I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East every encouragement in putting forward the motion. I can assure the right hon. Member for Down, South that we in the Tory Party welcome the fact that this subject is being discussed and that, in view of the number of my hon. Friends who were unable to make their contributions to the debate, I shall recommend to my colleagues that we have an Opposition day on the subject at some future date.

Mr. Powell: That is very good. We have got him at last.

Mr. Whitelaw: In the long run, we have to take account of the very strong feelings in the country, so often based on that most damaging of all emotions—fear—which notably flourishes on uncertainty. Fear breeds resentment and bitterness. It leads to cruel attitudes and even to violence. Nor is it ever confined to one side of any argument or to one group of people. In the long run, fear can be overcome only by inspiring confidence.
I appreciate the feelings of the right hon. Member for Down, South on this subject. He feels that he has to shock this House and any Government into action. I hope that I may say to him that once he has shocked us—and, as he will be the first to understand, he shocks me when he talks about the violence in Belfast—we shall seek to deal with the fear and that he will help everyone seeking to overcome it by inspiring confidence. I do not think that there is any other way. If we continue to inspire fears, we shall be doing the reverse of what we should do for our people.
The task of inspiring confidence is one of leadership, and it is one which faces this House and any Government. It is a task which demands action as well as words. We shall not succeed if we try to dismiss the fears as irrational or if we merely sit back hoping that the problem will go away. Rather we have to face all the claims and counter-claims with complete honesty and frankness.
In that spirit, it is right to start by reasserting the basic objective, for the avoidance of any doubt or any misrepresentation, even if it means constant repetition. Our objective must be to combine the strictest control of immigration with the most complete determination to ensure that there is equal treatment—that goes both ways—for all our citizens, whatever their colour, race or creed. The Home Secretary has stated his commitment to this principle frequently. I am certain that it is one which is widely shared throughout this House and the country as a whole.
It is widely accepted that there is a strict limit to the amount of immigration that our country can absorb, especially in current circumstances. The argument centres on how strict that limit should be.
In the Daily Express of 19th May, we had two divergent views—and we have had them again today—from the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon). The right hon. Member for Bermondsey makes the point bluntly that we have stretched the tolerance of the British people near to breaking point already and that, if we seek to absorb more people from the new Commonwealth quickly, we shall put at risk all our efforts to foster good race relations. In that connection, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) and with much of what the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) said.
The hon. Member for York argues for a policy which was stated in the Daily Express headline as being
Let them all come and end the problem now.
I respect the hon. Gentleman's sincerity and his considerable knowledge of race relations problems. But, as I see it, his proposition could be valid only if there was a clear and definite limit to the


numbers entitled to come in under the current controls and if we were absorbing successfully those coming in now or those already here.
On the first point, I shall explain later in discussing the entry of the dependants of those already here why I do not believe there is a clear end to an entitlement to entry under the current rules.
On the second point, the hon. Member for York, in his Sunday Times article yesterday, appeared to me to destroy his case. If, through our failure to deal with the problems of urban deprivation which so particularly affect coloured immigrants, we are not successfully promoting good race relations for those already here, how can it be wise to bring in additional numbers quickly in our present economic circumstances? Surely it is common sense, as the right hon. Member for Bermondsey described so graphically, to solve the problems we have already instead of deliberately making yet more difficulties for ourselves.
Further, I believe that the policy advocated by the hon. Member for York is misguided because it is not in tune with the broad mass of public opinion and so would tend to exacerbate fears instead of calming them, which I consider to be the vital task.
I conclude, therefore, that we need to examine our present control arrangements so as to limit those gaining entry to the absolute minimum necessary to meet any firm promises that we have made or any obligations that we have clearly and unmistakably undertaken. Against that background, I wish to put various matters to the Home Secretary which I hope he will consider carefully in planning future immigration policy.
First, I must thank the right hon. Gentleman for responding positively to my request for the publication of the Moser Report on immigration statistics. I have the highest regard for Sir Claus Moser. There can be no question of casting any doubt on the independence and integrity of his report. But, unfortunately, we still need some means of promoting confidence in the settlement figures.
The Moser Report finding that reliable figures could be obtained only at considerable cost cannot be ignored, especially by those like me who believe that Government expenditure is already

much too high. Nevertheless, I still hope that the Home Secretary will again consider my proposal for an independent inquiry into the best method of giving the public simple, easily understood figures which will command more widespread acceptance. The hon. Member for York spoke of reliable figures, and I must say that I agree with him. I hope that something along these lines can be done.
I listened carefully to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). On the problem of the United Kingdom passport holders, I must stand by the position taken by the Cabinet of which I was a member, advised by the then Law Officers. Equally, I endorse strongly the view of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Carr, who made it clear at the time of acceptance of the Ugandan Asians that no British Government could accept a burden of that sort again. Although the numbers from Malawi are not all that large, I believe that we should leave all those concerned in no doubt that we take Lord Carr's view today. I hope that the Home Secretary will categorically confirm that there can be no question of increasing vouchers above the present limit of 5,000 heads of households.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Lord Carr dealt courageously and correctly with this problem. There is, however, one aspect of his statement on which I should like the right hon. Gentleman's confirmation. About five months after the statement, he said, as it were, "God protect us from a repetition of the Ugandan problem." He did not, however, say there that he was repudiating the commitment to the United Kingdom passport holders. Is that the position?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have made it clear that I stand by the commitments of the Cabinet of which / was a member. I am not in the habit of going back on Cabinet commitments which I undertook with joint responsibility.
I hope that the Home Secretary will give me the categorical assurance I require. There is a strong case for reducing the quota in current economic circumstances, back at least to the 3,500 which the Conservative Government allowed. In this connection, it is worth remembering that under the Common


wealth Immigration Act 1968, introduced by the present Prime Minister, the quota was fixed at 1,500.
I accept, as the Home Secretary said recently at Question Time, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) says in his letter to The Times today, that there are arguments in favour of admitting quickly a comparatively small number of United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa, particularly if they are refugees. But there is an overriding consideration on the other side. By our actions we simply have to prove to all concerned, whether it be President Banda or anyone else, that Britain is not a soft touch to be exploited at will. The very fact that a case like that of the four-star hotel can arouse so much anger and concern proves that public opinion is in a very apprehensive state. I hear people say, as one hon. Member did today, that it is all because of the Press, but I have been long enough in politics to know that the Press will produce a story only if there is real public interest and anxiety about it. That is why these stories are coming forward. There is considerable public anxiety. I believe, therefore, that we should immediately reduce the quota in order to demonstrate our determination.
I hope, furthermore, that we shall ensure that our High Commissions in the countries concerned, particularly in Malawi, will give preference in granting vouchers to those who have somewhere to go in this country and funds with which to support themselves. I hope that we will seek Commonwealth and even international action to help us over this problem, particularly since some of the Commonwealth countries have clear obligations to the people concerned. We must convince all Commonwealth and world leaders that Britain will not take on a burden which is greater than it can carry without serious risk to its tolerant traditions.
I turn now to the problem of the dependants of those already here. In the Daily Express on 19th May, the hon. Member for York said:
I am lambasted as some sort of crank because I want to reunite a man with his wife as quickly as possible.
He came to the very fair point about uniting wives and children in his speech

today. From his experience he knows, however, that this is not the whole story about dependants. If we could have, as he suggested, a register of dependants, including only one wife and the young children of those who came here before 1st January 1973 and who have been promised that close members of their families may enter, we should know exactly where we stood. The number entitled to entry would be a clear, and not an open-ended, commitment. But we are allowing in an unspecified number of distressed relatives, grandparents and, in some cases, second wives. We are told that the numbers involved are small. But they are coming in just the same.
Then there are the male and female fiancés of proposed partners already here. The hon. Member for York did not refer to that, yet it is this provision which makes the commitment open-ended and subject to considerable evasion of the controls. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud says in his letter to The Times today, girls or boys born in this country can seek a fiancé of their own ethnic group from the country from whence their parents originally came, and then have the right to bring them in. The right hon. Member for Down, South said that they would continue to do so, and he may very well be right.
Surely this is a process which could go on for ever. It is an open-ended commitment with considerable implications. I do not believe that we shall restore confidence to our people if under these circumstances we assert that our commitment is definite and strictly limited. Surely the facts show that it is not. We must, therefore, be clear and honest about the exact nature of this arrangement, and that is what I ask the Home Secretary to do.
There are the continuing problems of illegal immigration and overstaying. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East referred to them in some detail. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that all the stories appearing in the Press about the various rackets that unscrupulous people are operating to evade controls are ruthlessly probed? I believe that to be the wish of the House. From what my hon. Friend said, there seemed to be a difference of opinion between the Home Secretary's officials on the one hand and some of the police reports on


the other. I can understand how the differences might arise, but it is important that these matters should be cleared up. Whatever arguments we may have about the nature and extent of the controls, we must all be united in our determination to ensure that the controls we impose are effective. Many of our people do not believe that they are, and so once again confidence is undermined and fears are increased.
We must convince many people in this country that their genuine fears of future racial difficulties caused by too lax an immigration policy now are unfounded or, if there is a risk of such difficulties, that we will make sure that they are dealt with. We have to prove to those with their origins in the new Commonwealth who are already here that we will treat them and their families as equal British citizens. We must prove to them that we will not undermine their position by allowing hostility to grow amongst their fellow citizens as a result of genuine fears created by too lax an immigration policy. I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to reassure the House that the Government's immigration policy will be planned and adjusted in line with these basic requirements.

6.28 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): Let me make it clear in the beginning that I, like the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), welcome this debate. I think that the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) chose his subject well. I do not know what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) had in mind in congratulating the hon. Member for Thanet, East on resisting pressure. It certainly did not come from me and it did not sound as if it came from the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border.
It is reasonable that we should debate these matters in as calm and constructive a way as possible. On the whole, I think that that has been the note of the debate. I deplored one thing that the right hon. Member for Down, South said. Having built up a case about the danger of excessive Asian immigration—and the pressure on immigration is mainly from Asian countries at present—he then, by a slip of the hand, tried to equate the

immigration problem with the growth of violence and crime and with a situation—a gross exaggeration, I thought—comparable with that of Belfast. Surely the right hon. Gentleman ought to know that there is no evidence that Asian immigrants are more than proportionately involved in crime, and that there is a good deal to suggest that they are less than proportionately involved in it. It is important that that point should be clearly made.
The motion begins by mentioning emigration as well as immigration. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border made a token reference to that in order to make a glancing party point to which I take no exception, except to say that it seemed unsound. That is because in 1975 emigrants from the United Kingdom holding United Kingdom passports—which is more relevant than the total—added up to 164,000, whereas in the last glorious year of the Conservative Administration the figure was 176,000. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to have much statistical evidence.
The issue which has perhaps featured more in the Press recently than in the debate—although it was mentioned in passing by several hon. Members—is that of embarkation figures and the Moser Report. I must make it absolutely clear that there has never been any question of my wishing to suppress any figures or withhold any information from the House or the public. I agree entirely with the view that to attempt to conceal or suppress is to fan the flames of fear and apprehension which are particularly damaging on this issue.

Mr. John Page: Since the right hon. Gentleman has said that he does not wish to suppress anything, will he explain why he gave orders that I should not be able to visit London Airport on Friday to examine procedures there?

Mr. Jenkins: Mainly because of the message which I received from the hon. Gentleman. One is never sure where confusion might arise. Any hon. Member can go whenever he wishes to London Airport and look at immigration procedures. The message I received was that the hon. Gentleman wished to discuss


policy issues before the debate with immigration officers who are civil servants. That is not appropriate. There was perhaps misunderstanding, but that was the message I received. If the hon. Gentleman merely wanted to go there, he would have been welcome.
I turn back to the question of the Moser Report. I have never wished to withhold any figures. but the Moser Report tells me that the embarkation figures are very unreliable and, therefore, misleading, even now that the crude error of double counting which began under the previous Government in 1973 has been eliminated.
What, in these circumstances, is it desirable to do? I could go on publishing the embarkation figures and the net balance derived from them in the official immigration statistics. But I am not going to mix up unsound figures with sound ones in an official publication. I am not going to put my name to what I have been professionally told would be a bogus prospectus, telling nothing of value about the true level of immigration.
Then it may be said: "Do whatever is necessary to make sure that the embarkation figures are made accurate". What are the objections to that? They are substantial. The costs in money and manpower would be very considerable. In Sir Claus Moser's words,
This would call for a considerable increase in the size of the Immigration Service, for immigration officers would need to collect additional information from all non patrials embarking from this country about their previous date or dates of entry, and recording at entry (presumably on passports) the category of entry so that it can later be entered on the embarkation card. Additional clerical and statistical analysis of the additional information would also be needed".
With present public expenditure restraints, of which I am strongly in favour and the Opposition even more so, as I understand it, I simply have not got the money or the staff for that. Even if I had, I would not use them that way. Remember that the substantial new body of officials would be concerned exclusively with getting a more accurate count of the numbers leaving the country. They would not be preventing anyone coming in. They would not be dealing with the reality of the problem. They would merely, at some inconvenience and delay

to all departing passengers, tourists and business men—everybody from all the countries of the world, Europe, America, Australia, everywhere, and not just India and Pakistan—be employed in giving us a more accurate retrospective measurement of the so-called net balance.
But what would be the value of a more accurate net balance figure? Even here Sir Claus Moser is sceptical. He points out that for a number of specified reasons it is far from being a good immediate guide to the number of immigrants settling in this country. There are other far better measurements of that, which we shall, of course, continue to publish in full. We would, therefore, be going to a great deal of trouble and expense for very little purpose. I must follow the rule that others have followed. I do not propose to be responsible for such an irrational diversion of public funds. If we had the money it would be more useful, as a check on our other figures, to spend it on more frequent censuses.
Therefore, in view of the most distinguished professional advice that I have received, I would regard it as wrong to go on publishing the embarkation and consequently the net balance, figures as part of the official immigration statistics. I may add that this is not a new view of Sir Claus Moser, provoked by the gross error of 1973. He pointed out in 1972 in an article in "Social Trends" that they were a very bad guide to immigrant settlement.
In an irrational world, however, made the more so by the right hon. Member for Down, South and a number of others, I am determined to do anything I can to avoid any suggestion of concealment. I am therefore perfectly willing to give the figures we have for 1975, but not to publish them in such a way as to give them the guise of proper statistics, which they are not. Indeed I shall give them now. The net balance for new Commonwealth and Pakistan for last year comes out at 67,110. That is somewhat nearer, probably by accident, to the settlement figures than for several years past.
This illustrates the ludicrous nature of the argument. These are figures which the right hon. Member for Down, South has always regarded as of great significance and importance. I, in common with my predecessors, have disagreed with him. But if he were right and I were


wrong what they would show is that I have reduced the immigration rate by 20,000 a year compared with the last year of the Conservative Government. I do not claim that that is in fact the case, but it shows the inherently contradictory nature of the nonsensical argument into which the right hon. Gentleman and others have led us.
So much for 1975. What do we do in the future? Rationally we ought to stop collecting as well as publishing these faulty figures. I propose that we should continue to collect them for 1976, give them next year as I have done this year, and then consider, hopefully in a calmer climate, whether it makes any sense to go on further collecting them. Then I shall consider whether there should be a more general and reassuring inquiry which would be worth while and reasonable.
I turn to wider and more important aspects of this difficult subject. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Thanet, East for the way in which he introduced his motion. I welcome, too, the hon. Member's wish that the Government's attitude to immigration should be clearly stated and understood.
I am determined, and I shall be for as long as I am in my present office, to apply strict immigration control fairly, to uphold the rules, to root out illegal immigration and to deal with overstaying. Illegal immigration is a problem, but I do not believe that it is a huge problem. It must be bigger than the number of arrests we make each year, but I do not think that it is very much bigger. Information from the Metropolitan Police and the Kent Police was in a somewhat generalised form. We have close liaison with the West European police and immigration authorities at the staging points. We are doing everything we can to root out this highly undesirable traffic. The hon. Member for Thanet, East will not have failed to notice that the resources available to the police—not so much in London but in Kent, for instance—have grown substantially over the past year.
There are few issues on which passion, prejudice and misunderstanding are more easily aroused than immigration. We all—the Government and Opposition, Press and television, majorities and minorities, indigenous population and immigrants—have a heavy responsibility to see that

the debate, not just in this House but the continuing discussion in the country, is sensible and that its result it not divisive. We must see that is is carried forward to a sense of unity among all who live here, whatever their race or colour, because it is such a sense which characterises a mature and healthy society. If we can agree on the facts and understand why our policies are as they are, we shall have made valuable progress.
If I had to summarise in one word what I think is bound to be our policy in this area, the word would be "balance". It is one of the most difficult areas in which to strike the right balance with which I have ever been concerned in a number of years as a Minister in a number of different offices: balance between our historical rôle as a place of refuge for the poor and oppressed, and our limited capacity to absorb further immigration in a small, primarily urban and densely-populated island with its own pressures on employment and other needs; balance, again, between the expectations which we understandably aroused in our imperial rôle that the United Kingdom could be turned to as a mother country, and the practical and economic impossibility of our becoming or remaining a country of large-scale immigration from the Commonwealth; balance between the understandable desire of those of other societies who have been accepted here to bring in their family and relations, and the need to regulate, in the interests of all, our absorption of people of different origins and cultures; balance between the need to apply equitably a clearly-stated set of rules for admission, and the need to show flexibility and compassion in the case which the rules do not quite fit; and balance between the need for a vigorous and effective enforcement of our immigration controls and the resources that we can spare for that task among the many other tasks that fall to us.
I stressed this need for balance on Second Reading of the Race Relations Bill on 4th March, in a speech to which the hon. Member for Thanet, East was kind enough to refer. I outlined then the general principle on which the Government's policy of race relations was based: an absolutely firm and determined front—I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman endorsed our policy in this respect—against any form of discrimination within our society, accompanied by the


recognition that there is a clear limit to the amount of immigration this country can absorb. That being so, the maintenance of a strict control is very much in the interests not only of the majority but of the minorities. It is to the elaboration of this principle that I shall address my remaining remarks.

Mr. Stokes: Surely the main point is that we have already passed the limit which we can tolerate, and the vast mass of the country wants a complete stop to immigration now.

Mr. Jenkins: The vast mass of the country has varying views. I have told the hon. Gentleman before that he is always very free in attributing his views to the majority opinion. There is some concern about this matter. The former right hon. Member for Carshalton, now Lord Carr, had to deal with the problem of Uganda in 1972, and he certainly would not have had support for his action on a referendum if it had been held in August, but most of us recognise that he dealt with the situation as he should, as a responsible statesman. We must all take into account not only simple reactions but certain other factors.
I come first to the matter of the United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa. In February last year I announced the Government's intention to increase the annual quota of special vouchers for them from 3,500 to 5,000. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to reduce that number. That was part of his speech that I must disagree with. I do not think that it would be right to do that or helpful at the present time. I believe that it was a right decision. I did it specifically because I wanted to reduce the danger of a repetition of the traumatic experiences of 1972, and I think that so far the policy has worked reasonably well.
This step, taken in pursuance of obligations acknowledged by successive Governments, has made a significant impact on the waiting period for vouchers. Those deprived of their occupation in Kenya and Tanzania can now obtain them without delay. There is an inherent contradiction between wanting a reduction in the number of vouchers—I recognise that the hon. Member for Thanet, East did not call for that—and saying "Let us at all

costs get people here when they can support themselves." If we make the queue longer, if we make people wait longer when they are deprived of their nationality in those countries, the chances of their being a public liability when they arrive here are much greater as a result. Now in Kenya and Tanzania vouchers can be obtained without delay, while there is a short waiting period in Malawi. This has been progressively reduced in recent months.
Since the exodus from Uganda, we have managed to regulate the admission of the United Kingdom passport holders in an orderly way. It remains my firm hope—indeed, I feel this still more strongly—that we shall now be able to see the end of this relic of our imperial history, without any repetition of 1972, during the course of this Parliament. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary that the number of United Kingdom passport holders and their dependants in Africa has been reduced to about 40,000, and on the present scale of issue of vouchers there is no reason why we should not be able to deal with that number, at the present rate of intake, within the lifetime of the present Parliament, bringing in all our passport holders in Africa who are heads of households and who wish to settle here with their families in that total. I am sure that our policy has been right.
I understand the disquiet caused by the publicity for some recent arrivals of families from Malawi, and I recognise that there are strong feelings about the matter. But I said last week that we must keep it in perspective. The total of 5,000 vouchers permits the admission for settlement of our passport holders and their dependants at the rate of about 20,000 a year, and there is nothing in any developments in Malawi that cannot be accommodated within the voucher scheme in its present form or which suggests that a mass expulsion is imminent.
The Government have no plans for an increase in the annual quota. But our handling of this delicate problem is not helped by inaccurate stories about the numbers arriving or expected to arrive and the spreading of rumours about the possibility of mass expulsions.

Mr. Peter Hordern: rose—

Mr. Jenkins: Nothing is better calculated to cause unnecessary alarm among the communities concerned in East Africa and to frustrate the objectives of the voucher scheme than scaremongering of that kind, nor does exaggeration of the help that some families need on arrival contribute to a sensible debate. I should not for a moment seek to defend or advocate the use of four-star accommodation. As I said last week, I think to the displeasure of the hon. Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern), in my view that incident was mismanged. The consequences have been bad for race relations. Let us remember, however, that such cases are only a tiny proportion of the total and that the elimination of the waiting period means that more applicants, having endured shorter periods of unemployment, can fend for themselves on arrival.

Mr. Hordern: rose—

Mr. Jenkins: I give way to the hon. Gentleman as I mentioned him.

Mr. Hordern: The Home Secretary will be aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said last week, in answer to a Question I put to him, that there were just under 66,000 United Kingdom passport holders in the various African countries and India who were entitled to come to this country. Are they, as I believe, entitled to come with their dependants? If so, does not this make the total with right of entry under present arrangements close to 250,000? If this is the case, how can they be absorbed under present immigration policy in less than 13 years?

Mr. Jenkins: I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I have been dealing with the particular problem of Asians in East Africa. I have given the total figures. There is some confusion—shared by the right hon. Member for Down, South—about whether dependants are passport holders. In many cases they are. When we talk about vouchers, we are referring to the heads of households. Passport holders include dependants, and in East Africa they total 40,000.
There may be, in the far distant future, problems with Hong Hong, but I think hon. Members will agree that they are of a quite distinct nature.
It is also important to remember in relation to these people that in their

country of origin they have shown a high business sense and ability to stand on their own feet. They have the capacity to be a real asset to this country and they are people to whom successive Governments have accepted a duty. Their plight demands our sympathy and understanding. To lengthen the waiting time, especially in view of the policies being adopted in some African countries, would be not only to their disadvantage but to ours. The longer they wait, the more likely it is that families will arrive without their own means of support.
The only other main source of Commonwealth immigration arises from the right of wives and children to join Commonwealth citizens settled here when the Immigration Act came into force, a right which is contained in the 1971 Act itself. Essentially it has been a process of reuniting families and, although it may fairly be argued that the separation, often for economic or other reasons extending for years, is a matter of choice, the Government have been anxious, once an application to bring in a wife or children is made, to see that it is processed as quickly as resources and the essential checks on its good faith will allow.
The rate of processing of entry clearances for settlement in the Indian subcontinent has substantially increased in the last year as a result of strengthening the staffs at the posts and other measures, and this has been reflected in the number of arrivals. Taking the new Common. wealth and Pakistan together, the numbers of dependants admitted for settlement increased from 21,000 in 1974 to 29,000 in 1975, although some part of this increase must be attributable to the increase in the number of special vouchers.
I draw one clear distinction between our commitment to our passport holders and that to dependants of persons settled here. As I have said, the time when we shall have discharged our responsibility to our passport holders in Africa is well within sight. The obligation to dependants is in a somewhat different category.
The statutory right of Commonwealth citizens settled here when the Act came into force to have their families join them extends not only to those who left their families behind but also to those admitted before 1st January 1973 who have since visited their country of origin to marry.
There is a strong tendency, which may weaken in future, for people here from the new Commonwealth to seek spouses in their country of origin. Moreover, persons born here of new Commonwealth parents and those who have arrived after 1st January 1973 as dependants may themselves, as they become of marriageable age, frequently wish to bring in wives from overseas.
For these reasons it is not wholly valid to assert, as my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) is disposed to do, that there is a completely "finite" pool of dependants. [Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen seriously to a serious argument. The truth, I believe, is somewhere between the two opposing points of view. The pool would not fill up nearly as quickly as it emptied, but nor will it be possible to drain it completely and say "That is that."
My hon. Friend takes the view that, since the commitment is finite, we should concentrate all our resources on clearing the queues over the space of the next two or three years and discharge our obligation once and for all. I do not believe his premise is sound, but even if it were, the suggestion is, I am afraid, in its full form unsustaintable. Were we to try to achieve it, to have a cut-off after two years, I believe that we would altogether, counting both United Kingdom passport holders and dependants from the sub-continent, be talking of an arrival rate of at least 90,000 and possibly as many as 120,000 a year. This is too many and would, in my view, place an unacceptable burden on local authorities, particularly on schools, in areas which are already hard pressed.
To achieve such a rate of entry, we would also either have to increase sharply the rate of processing applications for the sub-continent or we would have to adopt a much slacker screening process. As to the first, there is no prospect, with present pressures on public expenditure, of allocating more resources to it. As to the second, I am sure that we have gone as far as we reasonably can in simplyfying the procedure.
We have to recognise that there is inevitably pressure from Asia to defeat some of the immigration controls. I do not think we need necessarily think it is

morally reprehensible on the part of those who do it, but we must resist it. It is inevitable that where there is the great difference in the standard of living between the parts of families settled here and those who are not, we shall get pressure to admit people. The problem is that there is a lively sense of the extended family in Asian culture. It is not possible for us to accommodate extended families here. My hon. Friend the Member for York does not recognise the pressure from members of the extended family to pretend that they are members of the close family. We have to maintain effective controls at present.
I should like to say something before I conclude about the rôle of the Immigration Service. It is expected to exercise a strict control on immigration. It is, inescapably, a somewhat negative role. We look to the immigration officer to preserve our defences and exclude a person if he has no lawful entitlement to come here. I am afraid that all too often we abuse the officers for doing so. It is easy to subscribe to a general and necessary policy. It is less easy to be prepared to accept its application to a particular case.
I am not suggesting that immigration officers are infallible any more than anybody else, but let us acknowledge the professional skill which the service brings to its task and accept, in the individual case, the logic of the policies it is asked to enforce.
I have not sought to disguise the fact that immigration is one of the most intractable problems which successive Governments have had to face. Our policy must be a firm one, but it must be fair. It must be fairly and firmly applied. I agree with what has been the general view in the debate that good race relations policy marches hand in hand with a firm policy on immigration control. The absence of one can defeat the other.

Question put and agreed to

Resolved,
That this House notes with concern the changing demographic character of Great Britain, particularly the outflow of young people emigrating overseas and the continuing inflow of immigrants from the new Commonwealth; and calls on the Government, in the interests of improving race relations, to make a clear and accurate statement of its immigration policy.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

As amended, considered.

Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that the amendment has been selected.

Clause 20

POWERS OF POLICE AS TO SEARCH AND ARREST

7.3 p.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: I beg to move, in page 16, line 20, after '1949' insert:
'in relation only to subsection (1) of that section'.
Before I say anything else, let me make it quite clear once and for all that nothing I have to say in any way reflects on the British Transport Police. Many fair things have been said of them, and I accept them all. What I have to say is related solely to one particular kind of criminal offence to which I object strongly where-ever it may be found.
As there has been a certain amount of confusion on this matter, let me try first to remove any possible ground for it. Clause 20 continues the life of Section 54 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 for another five years beyond January 1977. Section 54 has two subsections. One deals with the powers of search and arrest that are given to the British Railways Police to search persons employed by or on the premises of British Railways.
Let me again make it perfectly clear that, though in the first instance the whole of the clause was raised for discussion by way of an instruction, in the debate on Second Reading the question of the continuance of the power to search and arrest was fully canvassed and dealt with. I accept on behalf of the Opposition that the powers of search and arrest ought to be continued, and I doubt whether they are any wider than our own common law powers. However, never mind these are powers to search and arrest employees, which is a very delicate area, and it is right that the House should specifically accept the responsibility of giving to one employee the right to do that. There is no question about that.
However, subsection (2) of Section 54 is in a quite different category. I shall shortly say something more about the nature of this offence, because it goes to the heart of the amendment and is what it is all about. What it does is to create a criminal offence. It does not give British Railways police any powers at all. Therefore, to discontinue it is not depriving them of any powers that they have. What the amendment would do is to take off the statute book a certain criminal offence. Whether it appears here or in any other statute, the sooner it is taken off the statute book the better. Our amendment is solely to remove subsection (2) of the Act from these provisions that are extending the life of Section 54.
I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that one would not be able to glean even that much information from looking at the Bill, because the Bill, in both the index and the marginal notes, speaks merely of
Powers … as to search and arrest.
What I am talking about is not a power to search and arrest but an offence the life of which would be continued by Clause 20 if we left it unamended.
Let me tell the House what subsection (2) says:
Every such person.
—that is to say, a person who has been arrested by the railway police under the provisions of subsection (1)—
who shall be brought before any court of summary jurisdiction charged with having in his possession or conveying in any manner anything which may be reasonably suspected of being stolen or unlawfully obtained and who shall not give an account to the satisfaction of such court how he came by the same shall be guilty of an offence against this section and liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding five pounds or in the discretion of the court to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two months".
Let us be clear that whether or not this is an offence depends in the first instance upon by who the arrest was made. That cannot make any sense. If a policeman of the Merseyside force were to arrest a person on precisely the same sort of grounds, that person could not be brought before the court charged with an offence of this nature. However, if he happened to be arrested by the British Railways police, under their power to search and arrest under subsection (1), he might be guilty of this


offence—the offence being failing to give a satisfactory explanation.
Why is it said that these powers are needed? It is said that they are needed as a deterrent. I ask the House to pause and reflect upon that. In my book, when we make something a criminal offence what we are saying is "This is something that the State says it is against the interests of the State for people to do, and therefore it is a crime". Then we attach penalties to it. The degree of deterrence normally lies in the penalty. We also say, in parallel with that, that when the State seeks to see someone convicted of that offence the State must prove it. Not only is there no obligation upon anyone to prove his innocence; he does not even have to say anything.
It is true that there have been some departures from that principle. For instance, if it is an offence not to have a licence, something in which it would be very difficult to prove a negative, the burden has been shifted on to the accused to show that he has a licence, that being a matter which, if he has a licence, it should be very easy for him to show. It is a quite different matter from calling upon him for an explanation.
It is true also that, where the burden is shifted, the burden is not the same. The burden is on the balance of probabilities in the kind of case I have been mentioning. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman who is handling the Bill will not allow the particular wording of the subsection to escape him. It is an offence not to give an explanation to the satisfaction of the court. Therefore, if the court is left in the position that it is not satisfied with the explanation, that is a criminal offence. It is a curious way in which to treat both the person concerned and the criminal law.
Why is that provision needed? Is it required as a deterrent? In 1975, only seven convictions on this charge were obtained. Numerically, therefore, it does not seem to be of much importance, but that is not the point. What is involved? Is it, or is it not, an offence of dishonesty? If it is an offence of dishonesty, should not a similar burden of proof be placed upon the Crown as for any other offence?
It was clear from the evidence given by the promoters of the Bill in the Private Bill Committee that if there is evidence of dishonesty they charge dishonesty—and so they should—and that this power is used only where there is not sufficient evidence to substantiate a charge of dishonesty. But what is this offence? If someone is found guilty of it, that goes on his criminal record. What is it? Is it an offence of dishonesty of which he has been convicted, or is it an offence of suspicion which he did not manage to clear? In either event it is extremely unattractive. In an ordinary charge, one has to prove a person guilty of dishonesty. If those concerned want to charge somebody with dishonesty, they should take the bull by the horns and charge him with that offence, and then everybody knows where he is.
In the proceedings before the Private Bill Committee, the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police cited several examples of proceedings having been brought under this subsection instead of charges of dishonesty. I shall go into this in more detail later if anybody wishes, but it is not immediately apparent, on the face of what he said, why charges of dishonesty should not have been laid if there was dishonesty. One can see now that the views expressed by the Minister's predecessor, as reported at column 340 of the proceedings, have been fully justified by the evidence laid before the Private Bill Committee and before the House. The Minister said, in effect, that, if people were using this provision to charge a criminal offence when they did not have the evidence to lay a charge of dishonesty, the sooner they are stopped the better. I agree.
What, then, is the effect of this offence if proved? The penalty is £5 or two months' imprisonment. What we are really saying is that this is halfway between honesty and dishonesty, so the penalty should be small. It is not really dishonesty, because dishonesty has not been proved, and so the maximum fine is £5. Or is it not more accurate to say that what we are saying is that that should be the fine for not giving an explanation? There is also the possibility of imprisonment for two months. Though that is small, it is not to be lightly considered; a man is in peril of being sent


to prison for two months if he is convicted under this section for not giving a satisfactory explanation.
What is also very important, as it emerged from the evidence in Committee, is that if a man—and these are mainly employees of British Railways—is charged under this subsection and is convicted, he generally loses his job. What for? Is it for dishonesty? If he is put in peril of losing his job for dishonesty, should he not be charged with that and be able to require the same burden of proof as is required for anybody else who is charged with dishonesty? If it is not dishonesty, why should he be discharged? Is it not allowing suspicion to rule the day?
I want to give the House one statement from the evidence of the chief constable. He was asked, in the circumstances with which he had been dealing, what value there was in this power, and he said:
The greatest effect of this section is a deterrent effect upon members of the staff, who realise that if they are stopped in possession of property which they have come by unlawfully, they will be and can be required to account satisfactorily for its possession. If they cannot do so, to the satisfaction of the police officer who stopped them, they can be brought before a court to give the same explanation in the hope that the court will not accept it.
In my view, that is a very strange way in which to look at the criminal law.
7.15 p.m.
I do not want to see any man brought before a court unless charged with a specific offence which those responsible for bringing the prosecution believe has been committed and is supported by evidence. I do not want to see anyone brought before a court in the hope that his explanation will not be accepted. I am not willing to believe that the British Railways police really want to be put in this special position and that, if it was explained to them what it was all about they would take the view which has been expressed to this House. I do not want the British Railways police to be put in the position where they say "We cannot prove anything, so we shall bring the man before a court and hope that his explanation will not be accepted". If they want to be able to do that, the sooner they are stopped from doing it the better. That applies to anyone else who wants a similar power, including the Metropolitan Police.
The Home Office did not expand on the details in Committee, but I hope that what I have said so far will persuade the House that the view taken by the Home Office was absolutely right. It said that the extension of any such powers as this should be resisted and that where public legislation was necessary to get rid of it that course should be undertaken at the earliest possible opportunity. The Home Office is pretty well committed to that already.
The official who represented the Home Office seemed to me to have got it right when he said, at page 24:
We had to consider the objection of principle to a provision which makes a man liable to two months' imprisonment for not giving an explanation for a course of conduct, which it is not possible for the police to prove amounts to a criminal offence.
That is what the case is all about. Britih Railways have sent us all a statement about the Report stage of the Bill, but one will not find in it any reference to the considerations to which I have been referring the House, and which are the only ones that are relevant. I have drawn this to the attention of the promoters of the Bill. Paragraph 12 of that statement relates to Section 54. One finds there a reference to the power of the police as to search and arrest but no reference to this peculiar offence, which was the whole subject of the argument in this House and in the Committee and the subject of the only amendment that was tabled. Indeed, one can go through all the public papers in this case without getting the slightest idea that what the Bill is doing is what I have described to the House.
In paragraph 12, after referring to the powers of search and arrest about which there is no argument, the promoters say:
The proposals of this clause were the subject of a debate after Second Reading on a motion for instruction to the Committee. … The Select Committee heard evidence on behalf of the Promoters by the Chief Constable of British Transport Police.….
The Promoters submit that, having received full scrutiny by the Select Committee which came to a decision on the basis of the evidence before it, the clause should be allowed to remain in the Bill unamended and the powers continue to be exercised by the Board as they have for so many years past by the Board and their predecessors.
I suggest to the House a number of reasons why, in addition to the general one, it should not feel bound by what


the Select Committee has done. It will be found in the transcript that experienced counsel on behalf of the promoters said that there were three grounds of objection taken in the House. First, the transcript says that there "could not" be powers like this in a Private Bill. I think it ought to read "should not".
The argument is that the powers are very different from anything else and that they ought to be given, if given at all, in a Public General Act. It was suggested by the promoters that these powers appeared in one Public General Act, the Metropolitan Police Courts Act 1839. So they did. I for one have been drawing attention to it from the start of these discussions and saying that that Act ought to go. Everyone agrees that it ought to go as soon as possible. The fact that it cannot go because there is no public legislation in which this can be done is no argument for continuing a provision which is agreed to be objectionable. The Minister gave an undertaking on Second Reading, and the Home Office gave further information in Committee, that negotiations had in fact commenced with a view to getting rid of those provisions in a Public Act when the chance arose.
The second point raised in Committee by counsel for the promoters was that our objection was in respect of a private police force and that such a force ought not to have these powers. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), leading for the Opposition, said specifically that it was not a private police force but a public authority police force. The discussion in Committee about police forces which are public authority police forces like this centred on the wider issue of control. It was pointed out that it was somewhat surprising to find one police force under the control of the Department of Environment so far as it was under any control at all. It was not an argument specifically related to this particular offence. But it could be said that, a fortiori, if this were objectionable in respect of an ordinary police force, it was even more objectionable in respect of one over which there was less control.
The third point, according to counsel for the promoters, was that there was no

precedent. I do not think this point was made very strongly at all. However, I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that a number of so-called precedents were put before the Committee which, when analysed, came down to the fact that there had been one Public Act in 1839. That was 137 years ago. It really does not bear on today at all.

Mr. George Cunningham: There was another measure.

Mr. Percival: The hon. Gentleman says that there was another. He is referring to the Transport Acts of 1962 and 1968. Tucked away in the schedules to those Acts was an extension of the powers which had previously been given to the British Transport Commission. If the hon. Gentleman really thinks that any other public legislation creates these powers, or gives them to anybody new, he has got it wrong. They were passed to the new bodies created in place of the British Transport Commission.

Mr. George Cunningham: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that no Public General Act other than the 1839 Act has repeated those powers. I suggest that if a Public General Act of very recent times—in 1962—has the effect of referring to these powers, they are not quite so unheard of in public legislation as the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting.

Mr. Percival: I think that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and I were both here at the time. If he noticed them at the time, he was better informed than I was. However, what happened was that the 1962 Act divided up the one organisation which had existed and allocated the existing powers to the new bodies. It did not create any new powers. If that is the strength of the hon. Member's argument, it merely doubles my misgivings about it. I am not just being clever about this. If that is the best example of public and general legislation which can be quoted, it really doubles my misgivings.
Apart from that the analysis showed there have been 20 Private Bills and one Order. What nobody seems to have drawn attention to is the fact that the Order was the subject of a special report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The attention of the House


was drawn to the fact that it seemed to contain an unusual exercise of the powers in the Harbours Act, I think it was. An amendment to annul it was tabled but there was no time to debate it. I do not think that that was a very good example.
However, I hope that the Minister has taken on board the significance of the 20 Private Bills, going back to 1852. Unless we deal with the matter now, we shall have to consider a renewal of them. They will all expire under the provisions of the 1972 Act. Therefore, we ought to be clear and realise that the sensible way to deal with the matter is by public general legislation. If we do not stick to what we believe to be right, all these will come along and it will be said that we gave it to this one and the others want it as well. The fact that there were 20 Private Bills may have some weight outside this House, but that does not mean that it actually carries much weight inside the House, because we all know that with the best will in the world we cannot give much time to these.
I suggest to the Minister and to the House that that reason was not a good one. However, even if the Committee felt that it was, there is another question of greater relevance to the House. That is, that we shall have to face up straight away to the fact that there will be another 20 Private Bills coming along for private powers unless we can deal with this point now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) is present. I do not want him to feel that I did not appreciate the importance of what he said at column 354:
British Transport Police feel that if their powers are taken away, they will be naked in the fight against the rising tide of crime."—[Official Report, 6th April 1976; Vol. 909, c. 354.]
I hope I have assuaged both their sense of decency and their misgivings, because I really do not think that the evidence before the Committee bears this out in any way.
I come lastly to the position of the Home Office. I would not say much about this point. I think that it was absolutely right in its unqualified view, expressed both in the House and in Committee and which, I understand, it still holds. Our amendment would give effect precisely to that view, and I hope that

the Minister will repeat his advice to the House to accept the amendment. In particular I hope that the Minister, of all people, will not feel bound by the Committee's decision.
The Committee clearly felt that it could have used a little more help. If the Minister wonders what I am talking about, I would direct his attention to pages 21 and 24. The speech of leading counsel took 11 pages of foolscap and there was no reply. One unfortunate official—I am in no way criticising him—was brought just before 6th April and was then left to carry the whole thing. Whatever the rights and wrongs of all that, clearly it disturbed the Committee. But it is not really of importance to the House, save in this respect: that we have to take the final decision, and we must not allow our decision to be disturbed by anything which might give up misgivings about how it developed. What we are concerned with now is what is the right thing to do. I hope that the Minister will stick firmly to his advice to the House. It is good advice, and we will back him on it if it comes to a Division to see that the right thing is done.
I again ask the Minister especially to bear in mind the question of the effect as a precedent of what we do today. If we do what I assert to be the right thing, we are in no difficulty. The whole matter can be looked at at large and properly and questions can be debated as to whether all police forces or none should have this power. I therefore very much hope that the House will accept the amendment.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: I am grateful for having been called at this stage and I apologise for the fact that I shall not be able to stay for the rest of the debate. My speech will be all the briefer for that reason. Other hon. Members will want to make some of the points that I would have made in a longer intervention, but one thing falls to me to say, and I shall come to it in a moment.
I do not dissent from the general case against the principle involved in Section 54(2) of the 1949 Act, which the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) has enunciated. I do not find


it an attractive principle that the burden of proof, whatever the strength of the burden, should be shifted to the defendant. But the question to which the hon. and learned Member did not address himself is the best method of considering whether the powers provided in the Act and in other Acts should be removed if it is decided to remove them. It does not make sense, if we are to remove those powers, to remove them piecemeal. That is how those provisions got on to the statute book and it would make much more sense to look at the matter all in all, so that all provisions of this nature can be taken together. That way of approaching it would mean that we could consider such provisions in private legislation and then the provision of powers in public legislation—principally the provision of 1839, to which the hon. and learned Member referred.
We all recognise who have read the proceedings in the Private Bill Committee that the Home Office, as I said on Second Reading, has not covered itself in glory on this matter and no doubt feels somewhat sensitive about it. I feel obliged to express my surprise that, although the Government, as is traditional on Private Bills, are not officially taking a line on this matter, the word is being spread that the Government wish hon. Members to vote for the amendment.
The Minister told me in a meeting on 10th May that it is the view of Home Office Ministers that the provision is as objectionable as his predecessor stated on Second Reading and they do not wish to retract anything in that statement. But, he went on, in the light of the consideration in the Private Bill Committee and the decision of the Private Bill Committee not to recommend to the House the deletion of Section 54(2), the Government would not invite the House to delete it.
There is something very funny going on when the Home Office Minister says one thing and the Whips say another. I am not altogether in favour of collective responsibility of Ministers, but it is the accepted practice at the moment. The Government had better sort themselves out before the end of this debate and decide whether they are recommending that the House does not accept the

amendment or that it accepts it. What we cannot have is the responsible Minister saying one thing and the Whips going about quietly saying something different. That is exactly what has happened in the last hour.
I hope that the Home Office Ministers will get around to doing what they should have done long ago, since they have such a firm opinion on this point now, and will look at the whole collection of these provisions, particularly the provision which exists in public general legislation, and then bring forward as soon as may be legislation—embodied no doubt in a Bill which would contain many other provisions—to deal with the whole thing at once.
That is the tidy way of doing it, the way which would make the House address its mind to the questions of principle and the questions of practicality involved. If that is to be done, the amendment should be defeated so that the Home Office is obliged to handle it in exactly that manner.

Mr. R. A. McCrindle: At the outset, I declare yet again an interest in this matter as the parliamentary consultant to the British Transport Police Federation. I suggest that the kernel of this debate on an extremely important matter is to be found in the last section of paragraph 12 of the statement on the British Railways Bill issued by the promoters:
The Promoters submit that, having received full scrutiny by the Select Committee which came to a decision on the basis of the evidence before it, the clause should be allowed to remain in the Bill unamended and the powers continue to be exercised by the Board as they have for so many years past by the Board and their predecessors.
The promoters make the point that, evidence having been submitted and the Committee having reached certain conclusions, it would be proper for the House now to allow this matter to proceed unamended.
I do not think that it was fair of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) to criticise the statement by the promoters as having failed to be over-specific about the powers under Section 54(2). Running all through the statement was a reference to the evidence submitted to the Committee, and even a cursory glance at that evidence will make hon. Members realise


that the powers under subsection (2) were as much under scrutiny as those under subsection (1) of Section 54. It was therefore perfectly proper for the promoters to restate their requirements in terms of these powers in broad fashion. I submit that that is what they have done and that is why the kernel of the debate should be the paragraph that I have just quoted.
We have before us at the moment a real matter of principle versus practice. I totally respect the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) on Second Reading on 6th April. They say that they would not wish these powers to be given under this Bill as a matter of principle. I seem to recall putting them forward on Second Reading as a matter of hard practice. Arising out of the evidence given in Committee, not least by the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police, the practical aspect takes on considerable importance.
I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton dismissed all too casually the deterrent effect of these powers. The Chief Constable outlined clearly the great importance attached by the British Transport Police to the deterrent effect of the powers in Section 54(1) and (2). He made the point that if they were to be taken away, the morale of the British Transport Police would be much reduced and that pilfering, which is already substantial on British Rail, would definitely increase. Those three points together show that the Chief Constable was putting forward a thoroughly practical reason for the retention of these powers.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: What evidence did the Chief Constable give the Committee that there had been any deterrent effect resulting from Section 54(2)? He said that he felt that it had a deterrent effect, but what was the evidence to back that up?

Mr. McCrindle: Without boring the House by quoting extensively from a document to which hon. Members have access, may I say that on several occasions in his evidence he referred to the deterrent effect which the British Transport Police felt that it had.

Mr. Lawrence: Oh.

Mr. McCrindle: My hon. Friend must not scoff at the suggestion that this was the feeling. The British Transport police, who are endeavouring to combat crime, felt very strongly about this matter.

Mr. Fred Evans: It was also rightly pointed out that it would be a very brave man who attempted to quantify deterrence. What is the measure of deterrence?

Mr. McCrindle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. who was the Chairman of the Committee, for fortifying my argument.
However, having emphasised the practical reasons for requesting that the powers remain, I do not ignore the point of principle on which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport concentrated. There can be no doubt that a degree of principle is involved in this matter. Equally, there can be no doubt that the Home Office, by its recent statements, seems set on a course which will culminate in the presentation of a Public Bill to take care of it. If so, I should not wish to challenge it. I contend that termination of the powers should be sought only in a Public Bill. That is another reason why the House would be ill advised to reject the recommendation of the Committee.
I felt on reading the evidence given to the Committee, as I felt when the former Minister of State, the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), addressed the House on Second Reading, that the Home Office had been guilty of cavalier treatment of the House and of the Committee members on this point, and if the penalty which it has to pay for that treatment is that we expect it to turn its attention to this matter—for the first time, it seems—and to work at producing a Public Bill to take care of the problem, so be it. The civil servants who have been involved with it have, to a large extent, been slipshod, while the former Minister of State was flippant. They must do their homework far better. The permanent solution of the problem would not be to prevent the powers from being renewed but for the Home Office to dedicate itself to bringing forward at the earliest possible moment a Public Bill to take care of it.
There will be another Private Bill sponsored by British Rail in 1977. I


suggest to the Minister of State that the best way of dealing with the question is to accept that, partly because of the omissions of the Home Office, the power should be renewed in a Private Bill. If it wishes never to have to face the problem again, the solution is in the hands of the Home Office. It should ensure that a Public Bill is brought forward between now and the next British Rail Private Bill in 1977.
The opposition is based, to a large extent, on the right of silence. The right of silence does not have the support claimed for it, by implication, by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport and, in evidence, I should like to quote two extracts from the Eleventh Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. First, it stated:
We propose to restrict greatly the so-called 'right of silence' enjoyed by suspects when interrogated by the police or by anyone charged with the duty of investigating offences or charging offenders.

Mr. Percival: Will my hon. Friend address his mind to this consideration? Whatever one says about the right of silence as a matter of evidence, this is making silence a criminal offence.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. McCrindle: Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will allow me to deploy my argument in the way which suits me best.
Having quoted that extract from the eleventh report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which, I should have thought, it would be difficult to challenge, I wish to quote this extract from the same report:
The suspect will still have the 'right of silence' in the sense that it is no offence to refuse to answer questions or tell his story when interrogated; but if he chooses to exercise this right, he will risk having an adverse inference drawn against him at his trial.
The right of silence appears to be such an unchallengeable matter of principle that some of us are uncomfortable at the thought of making even the tiniest challenge against it, but, in view of the evidence which I have quoted, it cannot go totally unchallenged.
We are told that, if the powers are renewed, the British Transport Police will have powers which few other police

forces have. Instead of being in a privileged position, with wide powers to arrest a suspect who must then prove his innocence, the British Transport Police are in no better a position than other police forces. In fact, if anything, their powers are more limited in scope than those of other forces, and in one respect—namely, that their powers under Section 54 are limited in time—they are in a worse position. Therefore, two facets of the argument of those who support the amendment seem to be in question.
This matter should not be dealt with piecemeal, and that would be the result if the amendment were to be carried. Instead of making the protest which, I concede, people have a right to make and then moving forward to a situation in which a Public Bill takes care of the problem, we should be dealing with the powers under one Act in respect of one police force. That would not be a proper way for the House of Commons to proceed.
In summary, may I say, first, that there is a strong need for a Public Bill to deal with the powers. If it is the wish of the whole House—it is by no means certain that that is the case—that these powers should be withdrawn, it should be done by means of a Public Bill. Secondly, it is right for the British Transport Police, for reasons of deterrence and the other reasons which I have mentioned, to retain the powers in the meantime. Thirdly, the Home Office should be told that how quickly it removes these powers, which it would seem to some of us it has suddenly become aware of, is for it to decide. Therefore, the promoters' submission which I quoted at the beginning of my speech is a proper reason for the House to reject the amendment.
The House should think long and carefully before it rejects the recommendation of a Committee of this sort. The Committee had the advantage of listening to all the evidence about the powers we are discussing. It decided that they should be retained. The House would be well advised to be careful before rejecting its unanimous submission.

Mr. R. B. Cant: I was appointed to serve on this Committee. My instinctive feelings were to support those who have argued tonight that these powers should be withdrawn from the British Railways police.


However, the more I listened to the case in Committee, the more I was persuaded that the powers should be retained.
I always feel intellectually and otherwise deprived when in the presence of lawyers. I often feel unhappy that my education has been in figures of arithmetic rather than in figures of speech. What struck me forcefully in the Committee was that, although an important question of principle was involved, there was also a serious practical problem and that in a sense, although no one would suggest that it was a unique problem, it was one with unusual characteristics.
It is inevitable that a great deal of pilfering should take place from British Rail. It is not as though it is an organisation or an operation dealing merely in warehousing of goods and articles some of which might be stolen from its warehouses. Employees and members of the public inevitably have access to goods which belong not to British Rail, but rather—I do not know what the legal position is—to those on whose behalf British Rail is performing the service.
This is an enormous problem. I will not go into the figures set out in the report. There are many instances involving not only employees of British Rail, but members of the public who infiltrate British Rail's premises. A large number of thefts come under Section 54(1) and not Section 54(2).
The question is whether in this complex situation British Rail should be denied special powers to apprehend, if that is the right legal word, people found in close proximity to its business, or whether such people must be allowed to go scot-free once they get outside the gates.

Mr. Lawrence: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that that is the impression he got from the evidence as to what the result would be if this subsection were to be deleted?

Mr. Cant: That is certainly one of the practical problems that arises. The figures involved are not sufficiently great to constitute any threat to human liberty or freedom. On the other hand, they are not sufficiently small as to be insignificant from the point of view of the business operation.
One of the difficulties is that the Home Office has adopted a peculiar stance. I will not say anything more about the official involved, although any words of criticism of a civil servant might be a sort of kiss of life to his career. Judging by the evidence we had from counsel for British Rail about this official's rôle, it seems either that the Home Office has been particularly offhand in its dealings or that the Home Office itself has just awakened, as the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Minister of State seemed to have awakened, to the fact that these powers not only existed but that something should be done about them quickly.
Over a year ago counsel for British Rail attempted to learn the attitude of the Home Office. They wrote to the Home Office again in October saying "Would you please acknowledge or reply to our letter of April?" They received no acknowledgement of or reply to that letter. On 6th April the Home Office condescended to put its thoughts on paper. I cannot believe that the Home Office was concerned at this moment to bring to an end the powers that British Rail has had, quite apart from reconstructing its thoughts about all the other Acts that give powers of one sort or another.
This ad hoc approach to what is said by the lawyers, perhaps quite rightly, to be a fundamental principle of British justice is not good enough. I am not sure whether it is right that one should ask the Home Office not to insist that our Ministers or our Whip's Office tell us more, in the interests eventually of having a Public Bill or not having a Public Bill. I am by nature profoundly suspicious of civil servants, although I believe that our civil servants are the best in the world.
British Rail has a problem, and it just is not good enough for the Home Office to coerce the Minister into saying "It cannot enjoy the powers that it has had because we have suddenly awakened to the fact that these powers are an infringement of human liberty." If my interpretation is too simple by half, I am open to persuasion.
I will not go on for too long, because I understand that there are other problems connected with British Rail which hon. Members are anxious to discuss. I


am a great believer in not making changes unless somebody, apart from civil servants and lawyers, is bringing pressure to bear. The only people who would persuade me as a practical man to do anything about this would be the trade unions.
I specifically asked the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police this question:
Could you tell us the trade union reaction to this power?
He said simply that there was no problem. Later I said:
Mr. Moriarty is right in saying that provided these powers are renewed every five years, the trade unions are reasonably happy?
The answer was:
They are quite happy, yes.
We have an obligation to ask not only the Home Office and British Transport Police but the trade union movement in this period of public participation what it thinks about this matter. If it is happy with it, I think we should leave it. After all, it is a situation which reflects on all people employed in British Rail.
It has been said that the trade unions were not happy that there should be black sheep, and they wanted something done about it. I think this proposed action is wholly premature. The amended Bill should be carried. If we are to have an unholy alliance of the Government Front Bench and the Tories, working together to defeat the Bill, that would be a great pity, if not an insult to the Committee which considered the Bill.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Lawrence: I begin by saying that I have nothing but admiration for the activities of the British Transport police. I do not blame them for trying to retain the Bill in its present form. If my hon. and learned Friends and I really believed that the police would in some way be prejudiced by the acceptance of this amendment, we should not be so enthusiastic in our resistance to this part of the Bill.
What I have found absolutely astonishing about the debate is the way in which a number of hon. Gentlemen, whom one would in normal circumstances expect to be supporting the part that is being played by my hon. Friends and myself

in trying to hold on to a fundamental principle of British justice, are resisting us. The principle of the right to silence is very simple. It is a protection against the innocent being convicted.
The right to silence means in effect that a person is presumed to be innocent rather than presumed to be guilty. This clause unamended requires that somebody who is found on property in suspicious circumstances is to be presumed to be guilty and that if he does not give a satisfactory explanation of his presence on the property, he will be convicted.
It was with astonishment that I heard the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) saying that he doubted whether our approach would have the support of the trade unions. All those who have ever appeared in courts and have fought for justice for their client and for the application of the principle of the right to silence know that the people most concerned with upholding it are the ordinary working people in our society who have difficulty in understanding exactly what may be the proper processes of the law when they are confronted by police affairs or solicitors.

Mr. McCrindle: Does that not make it all the more remarkable that the trade unions which are principally concerned are not opposed to the powers, nor opposed to the continuation of the powers, provided that renewal takes place every five years or so?

Mr. Lawrence: I cannot conceive that if the trade unions had really considered what was at stake they would adopt my hon. Friend's attitude. One reason why we raised 'his matter in the first place was that here was an important principle of our law being swept away and this action did not actually appear on the face of any legislation. One could look at this Bill without seeing what was happening.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) has repeatedly said that one of the results which must come out of this is that before any action of this kind is taken to interfere with fundamental principles, it should be clearly stated on the face of legislation. It does not surprise me to be told that the trade unions are not aware of the real significance of this


proposal. No one reading the Bill could see what was happening.
I quote from what people who are far more eloquent than I have said about the right to silence so that the significance of it may sink into the minds of hon. Members. Sir Herbert Stephen wrote a letter to The Times in 1898, saying:
Many people cannot in answer to questions, give a plausible coherent and honest-sounding account of any matter in which they have a strong personal interest, while they may in spite of that constitutional defect be innocent of the specific crime alleged against them.
I have a quotation from one of our current judges, Mr. Justice MacKenna, writing in the New Law Journal in 1970:
Under cross-examination persons innocent of the particular crime with which they are charged, though guilty of others, or at least of indiscreet behaviour, may involve themselves in contradiction, and say improbable things, and give the appearance of guilt. The right not to give evidence can be a safeguard for the innocent. Bad witnesses are sometimes wrongly convicted; perhaps more often than you think.
That is a general statement on the meaning and importance of the right to silence.
The present situation with which we are concerned, however, is far worse than that. What those two distinguished judges were referring to was evidence—the right not to have to commit oneself to a form of words which may be considered by a jury in the stress of the circumstances to be saying that one is guilty of a crime. But here it creates not just a matter of evidence but a criminal offence. That is a very serious matter.
Some may have different views about the rules. Some may consider that the time has come when there are so many problems, difficulties and stresses in our society that the rules ought to be changed, that no man ought to be presumed to be innocent and should instead be presumed guilty and that there should be placed upon a person the burden of proving his innocence. But that time has not yet come so far as Parliament is concerned.
If one says "This provision has been here since before the nationalisation of the railways in 1949", I reply that it has not been noticed as having been here because this and so many of these similar pieces of legislation have lain on the table and have had to be prayed against by way

of the negative procedure. In the hothouse of this place we have missed them.

Mr. McCrindle: I apologise for breaking in again, but it must surely have been noticed by the very trade unionists against whom my hon. Friend suggests the existence of the power is aimed. If it has been noticed by them since 1949, is it not surprising that virtually no challenge has been made against the existence of this power since then?

Mr. Lawrence: The reason may be that the power has been little used and therefore little noticed. I do not know what the reason is. It does not matter to me whether the trade unions are against it or for it. It is a matter of principle of great importance and it must be considered by the House.
On Second Reading I said that if the matter was not withdrawn and was left to the Committee, anything might happen. It did. The Committee, against a principle which in their heart of hearts I expect all hon. Members must have supported, and, against the strongest possible advice from the Home Office. decided to keep the provision in.
What went wrong? To begin with, a reading of the transcript will show that learned counsel—I do not blame him, but it is a fact—spent a considerable period of his time, as it were, conveying to the Committee that this matter had not really been considered very carefully on Second Reading. That would be a very good point if it were valid, and I can understand that view breaking down the resistance of hon. Gentlemen who formed the Committee.
But what was more important than that was the apparent—I can only read from the transcript since I was not there—performance of the witness for the Home Office. In the circumstances, it may well be that there was a reasonable explanation for his being inadequately briefed.
However, when a witness answers questions in this way—
I think that the question should be put to the Minister concerned
and:
Is it not your job to know that these provisions exist? Who is responsible for drawing attention to them?—Answer, it is certainly the responsibility of the Home Office. We have other things to do"—


and so on, and so forth, it is not surprising—and I am not criticising them for it—that the members of that Committee concluded that if this was the stand that the Home Office was taking without giving adequate thought to the matter, it must come back for greater consideration, They were not getting the assistance they had hoped for from the Home Office.

Mr. Cant: Will the hon. Gentleman also accept that the British Railways counsel wrote to the Home Office in 1975 but, despite repeated reminders, did not get a reply from the Home Office expressing its deep concern about this principle until 12th April 1976?

Mr. Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman is helping to make my point. He was irritated with the Home Office because of its delays, its slowness in answering the letters, and he therefore lost confidence in its witness.

Mr. Cant: No.

Mr. Lawrence: It must follow. But the point is that it does not matter how well a witness did—it does not or should not affect the principle. The decision on principle is either right or wrong. If a witness is not adequately briefed or cannot give an explanation for the slowness of the Home Office in answering correspondence, it is an unsatisfactory situation. But it should not affect the decision on the principle.

Mr. Cant: What influenced me was that if it took the Home Office a year to give an expression of its view about a matter which it regarded as of such fundamental importance, what sort of interpretation were we to put on it?

Mr. Lawrence: I understand the hon. Gentleman's feeling of dissatisfaction, anger and irritation. But the fact remains that the Home Office made clear on Second Reading, through the Minister of State himself, that it thought this provision unsatisfactory and that it should not remain in the Bill. It was not something thought up later. It had always been in the mind of the Home Office that the situation was unsatisfactory. The whys and wherefores of the detail are neither here nor there.
But, and even more significant, it appears that the hon. Gentleman was

under what I can only suggest to have been a substantial misapprehension, to the extent that this understanding was that, without this provision, the British Transport Police would be naked, that there would not be sufficient deterrence and a blow would be struck against law and order rather than for it.
The point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) that there is some power in this subsection helping the British Transport police to control the villainy that goes on in their scope of operation. But there is not the slightest jot or tittle of evidence to suggest that subsection (2) as opposed to subsection (1)—the power to stop and arrest, which is more likely to be a deterrent—is a deterrent which will prevent a man from stealing from the docks or the railways because, when stopped, he will have to give an explanation.
8.15 p.m.
I have never met a criminal who said that he was deterred by such a measure. Deterred by stop, arrest and search, yes, but not by such as subsection (2). But this power is not even necessary. As a matter of law, one does not have positively to identify items as having been stolen or having been stolen from any source. There is a whole line of decisions in criminal law, from the case of Fuchillo, decided in 1940, onwards, which says that it is enough under our existing rules for the prosecution to prove, from the mere circumstances in which a man comes to be in possession of something that they have been obtained in a dishonest way. There are countless cases.
The police do not much use unlawful possession. They bring prosecutions for theft. They do not have to prove the loses or identify the object, provided the circumstances in which the goods are found are themselves a convincing case that the goods have been dishonestly obtained.
If a man having been warned of his right to be silent gives an answer which later is clearly faulted, or gives an explanation for his possession of articles which is patently absurd, there is adequate ground in our existing law to convict him of theft without doing violence to any fundamental principles.
But these matters were never before the Committee. I have read the evidence. Learned counsel took the Chief Constable through the deterrent value of the provision and the need for this provision. He did not suggest that there was the case of Fuchillo and a whole line of cases showing that the police did not have to identify the source of the goods or the fact that they were positively stolen. If the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and his colleagues had known that, and if they had not been so angry with the Home Office, perhaps they would have accepted completely, as mostly they did, and for good reason, the assurance of the Home Office.
The Home Office as a Department is an expert on this sort of thing. It was right in this case, and the hon. Gentleman must know in his heart that the preservation of the right to silence is the right course. This provision will mean a criminal offence which, in the end will hurt the working man in the docks and railways far more than it will hurt anyone else. I ask the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues not to resile from the position that the Home Office rightly took on Second Reading and which I hope it will take tonight.

Mr. John Mendelson: From what has been said so far—and of course we have not heard from the Minister yet—one gains the impression that it should be possible to reach agreement in favour of leaving this provision out of the Bill. But I do not think that the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), with whose argument I basically agree, has correctly stated the motivation which led my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) to adopt the view he has taken. I think that the reasons advanced so far do not necessarily lead to a contradictory conclusion.
As I understood it, my hon. Friend was not arguing that he was angry with the Home Office—or, at any rate, that his anger made up his judgment. After all, he has too much experience of central and local goverment to have his mind made up because he happens to be angry with a Department of State. If that happened to be the view of hon. Members generally, our minds would be made up for us on many occasions by emotional attitudes towards a Department of State. I understood him to say that

if the Home Office is so opposed to this provision, it should have given more evidence of how strongly it felt on the matter. That was the burden of my hon. Friend's case, not that his anger had led him to a particular conclusion.
It is because he did not see that evidence that he mentioned more than once the long delay of the Home Office in replying to correspondence. That was why he came to his conclusion about the hesitation shown by the Home Office. If that is his reason, it ought to be possible by argument to persuade him that he should join those of us who feel that the fact that the Home Office—although believing that this provision ought to go—has not been diligent enough in pursuance of a correct point of view should not deter the House from coming to the right decision this evening.
The argument put forward by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), seems to me to be not an insuperable ground for failing to agree in the end with the proposition that this provision ought to go. The hon. Gentleman's argument is not intrinsically one which supports the provision.
One of the most remarkable aspects of the debate so far has been that this provision has no friend in the House. Some hon. Members have attacked it vehemently but no one has defended it. The hon. Gentleman, who was a member of the Committee, argues that we should leave well alone for the time being, because the provision ought to be got rid of in a general Bill for which the Home Office, as a Department of State, ought to be responsible. He hopes that it will be so responsible.
On the other hand, it could be put to the hon. Gentleman that that is no reason for not doing what can be done tonight in this particular case, especially in view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central has told us about the lack of diligence with which the Home Office has so far been proceeding in this matter. There is no insuperable reason why the hon. Gentleman should not also agree that the provision ought to go.
I turn now to an argument with which normally I would have a great deal of sympathy. That is the argument concerning the attitude of the trade unions


concerned. We must always be mindful of how the people most directly affected feel about a provision concerning their members. On the other hand, I submit that where great principles of law and justice are involved, it cannot be regarded as absolutely final when a trade union in a particular situation comes clearly to a conclusion that its members need protection.
Whether a trade union has violently protested about something or not, it is for the House of Commons to make up its own mind as to what is required in the interests of a great principle of justice. The House must do what is right in such a situation and tell the trade union that the House has done what it believes to be right.
When as a Member of Parliament I report to various meetings of shop stewards and trade union organisations on, for example, the new maternity rights legislation passed by the House, although I do not believe that trade unions in my part of the country are less well informed than those elsewhere, I often find that some of the provisions come as a surprise to some of them when they have not been agitating for such provisions. This does not mean that the House was not right in doing those things for which there has not necessarily been agitation in every detail.
The House of Commons sometimes has to be in advance of others where matters of great moment are concerned, particularly principles of justice. It does not always have to wait for outside organisations to demand action before it takes action. That, again, should not be an insuperable argument for not taking action tonight.
If the Chief Constable has argued that a particular measure is a deterrent, that is the most suspicious reason of all. In my experience on Private Bill Committees, counsel cannot be faulted when giving only limited information. The hon. Member for Burton has told us that the report shows that counsel did not quote all the cases that the hon. Gentleman has quoted in the debate this evening. One of the weaknesses of the hon. Gentleman's profession is that when pleading a case, having been employed to do so by a particular party or organisation,

counsel strictly confine themselves to saying as much as is necessary and no more. They do not go beyond their brief.
I think that this is the explanation of the limited case put forward by the hon. Gentleman in Committee. Obviously, there is much more to be said. But this is only the professional limitation we must expect from professional lawyers. This is what is so dangerous.
I take much more seriously a judgment which comes from a police officer. Very often what people describe as a deterrent involves a serious limitation, as the hon. Gentleman has so rightly said, particularly upon people who do not find it easy to express themselves, who are not very glib with their tongues, and who are not always the best people to speak up for themselves. In this respect the provision is dangerous, and I am deadly serious about this.
After the Minister has given his agreement to the course which has been urged, I hope that we shall be able to agree that this provision ought not to survive.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): This being a Private Bill, in no sense in my intervention am I winding up on behalf of the Government. This is not a Government proposal. During the course of this short debate my Department has been showered with criticism and advice, the exact proportions of which have varied from speaker to speaker. Two questions have arisen in the debate: first, what is the Government view about Clause 20 as it now stands; and secondly, how it is proper to proceed?
I can give the House straight away some guidance as to the Government's attitude. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon), when he spoke on Second Reading, took the view that it was wrong in principle to have a provision of this kind in any Bill. I share his view concerning that principle, which is cherished by the English law for the protection of the innocent. Consequently, I believe that if, as in the case of Section 54(2) of the 1949 Act, a man is presumed guilty unless on the balance of probabilities he proves himself to be innocent, that is a measure which I could not possibly approve.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) had the


advantage of serving on the Committee and, therefore, of hearing the evidence. I may say that, if he feels some diffidence in the presence of lawyers, it is nothing like the diffidence which I feel in the presence of statisticians or anyone who can add. My hon. Friend argued forcibly that, first, the Home Office was slow in coming into this matter and tardy in its response to British Rail. The then Minister of State apologised for this on Second Reading, and I reiterate the apology of the Home Office. There was administrative inadequacy in failing to respond to correspondence. There is no question but that matters went unanswered, and for that we are sorry. We have no excuse to make, and I have taken steps to see that it does not recur. But my hon. Friend's criticisms about the lateness of the rethink and the incompleteness of the examples are matters which do not go to the root of the argument.
In much of the argument today, I detect an attitude which is best summed up in the title of the novel "The Singer not the Song". It has been the Home Office, for the way in which it has approached this matter, which has rightly attracted criticism, rather than the principle itself.
8.30 p.m.
I think that the argument should, on the first head, be directed to whether the principle was right or wrong in detail. I do not think that anyone defended that wholeheartedly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) pointed out. On the first stage of the argument, therefore, I say that if the House is asking whether the Home Office has still the same view in principle about this measure, my answer is that it has.
But the second stage that we have reached is how we go about correcting the provision. In other words, what is the proper procedure to adopt now that a Committee dealing with Private Business has spent two and a half days examining the details and has delivered a report?
I am not attracted by the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) in saying that we cannot deal with a matter piecemeal and

that we have to deal with it in some great Public Act. How Members on both sides of the House will know the difficulty of getting time for public legislation. If, by some miracle, in three months we produced a Public Act to repeal this provision, the provision in the Bill just having gone through, I should understand the criticism.
I must make one point in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. He has left us, for reasons which I understand. But, as I told him in the interview which he partly quoted to the House, since he takes the view about this Bill that he does, he is entitled to look to the Government at the expiry of every other Private Bill, as and when it falls, to take the same view in principle. But again, on behalf of the Government, I am a little chary of making any great governmental intervention in what is, after all, a Private Bill procedure and what is, at the end of the day, for the House of Commons as a whole to decide.
It would have been unparalleled for any Government to have sought to amend the recommendation of a Committee. We did not seek to do that. I believe that the right course for the Government to take is to say quite firmly that this is a matter for the House as a whole to decide. That being so, it is my intention to abstain in the vote. It is for the House of Commons as a House of Commons to make up its mind on the arguments, both as to principle and as to practice, whether the amendment should be carried or defeated.

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: I shall try to be extremely brief, but some of the comments which have been made have not contributed to silence on my part.
First, I wish to make it clear to my right hon. and hon. Friends that I did not in any way treat the matter lightly. I do not think that anyone can treat lightly a clause dealing with the apprehension of transgressors. However, we know from British Rail that in 1971 there were 44,000 cases of theft whereas in 1975 there were 60,000.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) said that there was a point of principle involved and that it was a question of the liberty


of the subject. It was this very point which decided the issue for me, for reasons I shall mention in a moment. Nothing that the Minister of State said contributed to my changing my mind about the decision which I reached in the Committee. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport said that the Committee was establishing a principle. I accept that, but what has not been referred to sufficiently in the debate is that this is not a power unique to this Bill. The power is possessed by the Metropolitan Police, and according to the last and only year for which we were given figures—which were not challenged by the Home Office—377 prosecutions were brought by the Metropolitan Police and these resulted in 250 convictions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) asked what went wrong in the Committee. I can assure him, certainly for my own part, that it was not that we had failed to read the Second Reading debate and the powerful arguments advanced there by my hon. Friend. Any member of the Committee who had failed to read that debate would lay himself open to criticism. I appreciate the force of the arguments put forward then.
The arguments of learned counsel did not deflect the Committee members from making a proper assessment of the arguments advanced on Second Reading. What went wrong—for me at any rate—was that, when we asked the Home Office whether it intended firmly to take action to deal with this as a matter of principle in a public Bill, it was unable to give that commitment.
Let me refer to the statement by the Home Office, because for me the evidence on this point was decisive. We were told:
It is true that there are no current plans to repeal the provisions in the Metropolitan Police Courts Act 1839 and the Public Stores Act 1875, but it is also true that on the instructions of our Ministers we are opening negotiations with those responsible for administering these offences in other Departments and in the Metropolitan Police to see whether it is possible to repeal the provisions. Our Ministers fully accept that the objections that have been made to section 54(2) apply to other examples of that offence and they would like to be consistent. I cannot give the Committee an assurance that Government legislation will be introduced to effect that change.

I would have found an assurance of that kind in Committee decisive in my attitude to the provisions. Again, it would have been decisive this evening.
There is a difference between the employees of British Rail and the general public who are subject to the powers of the Metropolitan Police. British Rail employees are to some extent in a position of trust. They can leave the employment if they do not like the provisions which apply to them. But if the Government attach such importance to the matter that they say they will oppose provisions similar to this in every Private Bill—that was the categorical statement of the Minister of State—why are they unable to say that the public will demand a Public Bill to that effect and that while the timing is difficult they intend to introduce such a Bill? The Minister of State did not give that assurance.

Mr. John: The hon. Member should be fair and quote my exact words. I said that the Government should be consistent in their attitude in principle to all these Bills. That was what I said about private Bills as they fall in and about public Bills. The discussions to which the hon. Member refers are being undertaken to see whether we can put our own house in order. I am determined to see whether that can be done.

Mr. Hall-Davis: That is a little more of a commitment than we have had hitherto. The Minister of State is stating his own position, but he is unable to say that Government legislation will be introduced to effect these changes in a Public Bill. I believe that Public Bills should take precedence over this Private Bill. I cannot pronounce on the other Private Bills since I have not seen their terms or listened to the evidence on them. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Burton that I listened to the Second Reading debate and endeavoured to address myself to the merits of the case. I would have accepted a firm assurance from the Government that legislation would be introduced.
If the balance of argument on a Public Bill is such that it requires negotiation and a firm decision cannot be given, the change in the position against the present social background should follow this legislation and not precede it.

Mr. Fred Evans: I have little to add to what has been said but I want to touch on one or two issues that have been raised. The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) seemed to call in question the attitude of the Committee in examining the problem. I can assure him that the Committee was objective and was not moved by emotional arguments.
The hon. Member also questioned the capacity of the trade union movement to examine these matters in necessary depth. Unions have their legal departments and they are fully seized of the problem. I understand that in the past they have expressed themselves and that they are content at the moment because of the time limit for the renewal of the powers.
I now return to the part played by the Home Office in 1975 when the powers came up for renewal on an opposed Bill. The then chairman fully argued the case in Committee and took the view that the power was undesirable unless it was contained in public legislation. For that reason, to give time for the introduction of public legislation, the period for renewal was shortened. But there has been no public legislation.
It is important that the House should know the part played by the Home Office. I do not want to go into the time scale of letter writing but it was considerable. The Home Office was contacted and in one of the letters was told:
Having regard to the time-scale for Private Bills, you will appreciate that, unless it is the intention of the Secretary of State to introduce next session such legislation, the Board must themselves seek an extension of these powers in their Bill to be deposited in November.
The Home Office was again contacted in October and an answer was obtained in time for the Second Reading debate. The Committee had an opportunity of perusing a statement from the Home Office which said:
The Secretary of State is aware that similar provisions to section 54(2) of the 1949 Act exist in local legislation…"—
the Liverpool Corporation Act and the Port of London Act were mentioned—
There are no current plans to repeal those provisions, but they are not regarded as entirely satisfactory and their existence is not seen as sufficient reason to justify the continued operation of section 54(2) as proposed by Clause 18 of the present Bill".

Towards the end of the evidence by the Home Office to the Committee there was a statement that approaches towards negotiations were taking place at the time, so the story evidently did not stop at that final paragraph in the Home Office statement.
8.45 p.m.
The arguments about British Rail's assessment of the deterrent value have been advanced tonight. Whilst it regarded subsections (1) and (2) as linked for reasons of deterrence and so on, the British Rail counsel said:
Until the Secretary of State has been able to adopt a clearer position in relation to this matter…if the Railway Police find these powers of value the Committee will, I hope, hesitate to deprive them of the combined effect of the two subsections. They go together and while I think we fully apprehend the dislike and indeed the danger of changing the burden of proof, because the scope of subsection (2) is so limited"—
that is, to employees of British Rail and their being found on premises and so on—
and because it does serve as a deterrent, we hope that it may be allowed to continue for this limited period.
In other words, in that submission British Rail is saying that if the powers are to be eroded piecemeal, rather than there being general legislation which gets rid of the anomaly at once, it wishes to continue with the powers which, on the police evidence submitted to the Committee, it finds acceptable. The point has already been made tonight that the time involved in piecemeal legislation could be quite considerable and could lead to all kinds of anomalous situations.
We did not listen to the arguments with any sense of being annoyed with any witness at any stage in the proceedings. I am satisfied that the Committee reached the conclusion that it did on the weight of the evidence put before it.

Mr. Percival: With the leave of the House. I should like to take two minutes to reply. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) summed the whole matter up in the expression "on the weight of the evidence which was heard". A great deal of the case has been deployed in the House. Members of the Committee who have spoken seem to feel that there is something personal in this attack. There is not. It must


happen on occasions that the House takes a different view from that of a Committee, but there is no sense of disrespect.
As the Minister said, there has been a good deal of emphasis on the delay of the Home Office. We all agree that that was very bad, but that matter is on the singer, not the song, and we are now concentrating on the song.
What has emerged from the debate is that we all seem to be agreed that this offence should not exist in our criminal law, and we wonder how to get rid of it. Without the amendment, we are renewing it for five years. If we pass the amendment, the power goes at the end of next year. All the powers in the 22 Private Acts will expire in the next year or two, because all those Acts expire under the 1972 Act.
If we extend this power now for five years, how shall we resist an application to extend all those, with two more Bills waiting in the queue? If we do what the amendment says, we get rid of it from next year in this one Bill. Then, when any one comes forward for renewal we can say "The House decided that it does not want this offence to exist", and that leaves only the 1839 Act to get rid of. The Minister made clear that that will be done as soon as there is an opportunity.
Members of the Committee may now feel that they have had the advantage of a much wider-ranging debate and agree with the analysis of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) that the right thing is for us all to reach agreement now. If, unhappily, that is not possible, I ask all those who believe that the offence should no longer exist to support the amendment in the Division Lobby.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill to be read the Third time.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS (FELIXSTOWE) BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading Read.

Mr. Keith Stainton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you be kind enough to give a ruling and your guidance on the question of shareholdings by hon. Members in the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company and/or European Ferries at the relevant time?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): The ruling of the Chair on this matter is that it would be inadvisable for any hon. Member to exercise his vote if he has a direct or indirect interest. An indirect interest could include benefits in kind. That is my advice.

Mr. Stainton: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is well known that European Ferries achieved considerable commercial success in inviting shareholdings on the basis that shareholders would be entitled to cheap cross-Channel conveyance of their vehicles and families. Would such motives for holding a shareholding be an equal debarment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Hembers will have taken the point made by the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton).

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Ken Weetch: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Very little of consequence has altered since the Second Reading of the Bill and, more particularly, since it was considered in the House last week. There is little to be said for wholesale repetition of arguments used in previous stages, and I intend to take up very little of the time of the House because there are hon. Members on both sides who wish to speak.
When the smoke and dust has cleared from this battle, the main issue will remain precisely as it was. The impressive history of the development of the port of Felixstowe is admitted by everybody who has taken part in the debate, and the transformation of Felixstowe by the pioneers, to whom I pay tribute, from a


silted backwater to a port of great importance has an exciting ring.
But there were other factors. The first was the geographical position of Felixstowe in relation to the rapidly developing region of East Anglia which has caused expansion in all the haven ports, including, for example, Ipswich, whose development, ownership and control is substantially different from that of Felixstowe.
Felixstowe has also benefited from the technical revolution in cargo handling because it has had no residual hangover of the older, more traditional methods. In the older ports, transition from the old to the new involved very complex changes for the work force and threw up very different problems in management. Felixstowe port, if I may put it this way, developed in the new container era, and the difficulties of transition were not great. However, even though these two points are conceded, perhaps, the emergence of Felixstowe has been impressive and the evidence is there for all to see.
There is, however, another piece of evidence, to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. What sort of private enterprise development, I asked myself, does Felixstowe port represent? To find out, I looked at the gearbox of free enterprise in any company—the balance sheet. I should like to quote from the report and accounts of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company for 1975, page 23, section 13, headed "Stock and Loan Capital". The total debentures, loans and overdrafts in 1975 came to £7,610,164. Of that figure £2,718,545 was a secured loan from Department of the Environment at rates of interest varying between 6 per cent. and 16⅛ per cent., repayable at various dates up to 1994. Secondly, over £1 million-worth is of secured loans from the Department of the Environment at rates of interest varying between 6 per cent. and 16½ per cent. Therefore, out of a total of just under £7¾ million, £4 million represents Government money.
What sort of pure free enterprise development is that? It simply does not stand up to close examination. State aid has been forthcoming even in the heyday of private enterprise of this port. That is an inescapable fact.
At present, concerning the port of Felixstowe we are in a new ball game altogether. Last year Felixstowe reached a point at which the directors of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company realised that changes were needed. In particular, there was the realisation that continuing and substantial injections of capital investment were needed. Secondly, in addition, a new era is at hand with the National Dock Labour Scheme and the complex changes that that will bring about. These and other factors now intrude on to the situation. The future will be more complex, and more sophisticated techniques will be needed.
Here we come to the crux of the whole matter. The essence of this argument in principle is that with this new situation, given a choice between European Ferries, even with the flair and profitability which that company represents, and the British Transport Docks Board, the latter having experience of 19 ports of varied conditions over a wide geographical area, long experience of operating within the National Dock Labour Scheme and the weight of experience behind it of port ownership and control under complex modern conditions, it is a more rational and more advantageous choice for the port, for East Anglia and the nation that it should go to the latter rather than to European Ferries, which in the last resort has no such experience and, in the end, is a shipping company.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: As European Ferries says that it will carry out dredging and help considerably in the development of the haven ports complex, may I ask whether it is the intention of the British Transport Docks Board to carry out dredging for ships of up to 30,000 tons in the Stour?

Mr. Weetch: I can give a categorical "Yes". It is the intention of the British Transport Docks Board to do whatever dredging is demanded—indeed, to sink whatever capital investment is required by the commercial demand for facilities at Felixstowe, and to do whatever is required. My point, which is a general one, is that in the long run European Ferries cannot offer the same depth and breadth of skill and experience in this matter.
It is still not advisable, even given what the Felixstowe port users are saying


and have said, to have a port under the control of a single port user. On my reading of the minutes of the evidence before the Committee, I did not find that counsel for the petitioners made any objections at all in principle to the Bill. There were objections to detail but none in principle.
Whatever the sentiments are now of the port users at Felixstowe, it is still the case that control by one user is such that it would permanently be in a position to hand itself advantages. One set of people who have not spoken, and indeed cannot speak, are the port users of the future, and that is another point.

Mr. Peter Fry: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would explain what he means by "one user". He knows that there are other users of the port, and they have all categoricaly stated that they would be happy with European Ferries taking it over.

Mr. Weetch: I am still pointing out the danger that must remain in the long run. On Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who has detailed experience of the port of Liverpool, testified that a substantial reason for its decline was that the port was controlled by a port user. Historical experience of other examples guides me in this decision.
There is another point that is worth contesting, and I do so because I want to face the argument put forward by the opponents of the British Transport Docks Board as one of their alleged points of strength. It has been alleged that the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company could not raise the capital: in fact it was there like a paralysed rabbit because of the threat of nationalisation. That argument does not hold water. What is being said, and indeed has been said, is that when the trumpet uttered the certain sound of public ownership the walls of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company fell down.
That argument gives me considerable cause for surprise and the Conservative Party and its supporters in the country, I suggest. considerable cause for concern, because it means, on the face of it, that free enterprise as a political force represented in the Conservative Party has no

resilience at all. If public ownership came to Felixstowe through nationalisation, surely, if the Conservative Party continues to be a strong national force end eventually becomes the Government, and if the port is such a jewel in the free enterprise crown, I should have thought that the situation would not be beyond redemption, but apparently it is. We all know that we are in a fluid political situation, yet free enterprise in its political manifestations has apparently taken flight at the sound of the guns. Apparently the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company is the first fugitive from the field.
On the Third Reading of the Bill, I am asking the House for a solid vote in its favour. In summary, I believe that it is in the best interests of the port that the British Transport Docks Board agreement should be ratified by this House. I believe that that is also in the public interest and, in the last resort, confirmation of a commercial bargain already struck between the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company and the British Transport Docks Board, which is a continuing obligation.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Keith Stainton: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) as I represent the constituency containing Felixstowe, which is adjacent to Ipswich. One of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman was that, despite the fact that Felixstowe had done well, so, too, have the other Haven ports.
He quoted Ipswich as an example. The comparative traffic figures were, for Felixstowe, in 1966, 800 tons; in 1974, 3·7 million tons. That is ignoring fuels entirely. The figures for Ipswich were 1·9 million tons in 1966 and 2·5 million tons in 1974. I would suggest that the hon. Member for Ipswich concerns himself much more with the finances and operations of the ports in his constituency rather than straying elsewhere.
There is, inevitably, an air of deja-vu about this debate. We have been over the ground before: indeed, this was conceded by the hon. Member for Ipswich. He struggled to make what I thought were simply twists on points which had been made very adequately previously.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The hon. Gentleman is faltering.

Mr. Stainton: I am faltering? Let us see how we progress. I have only just started. When one clears the first fence or two, perhaps one gets a second breath. It is how one comes in which matters, not how one starts. I will not be diverted, because the time at our disposal is restricted.
The hon. Member for Ipswich played up the point about the financial involvement of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company with the Department of Environment, as it now is. It certainly was not in 1963 when the Harbours Act was passed. It was under that Act, with the approval of the Treasury, that these moneys were advanced.
I can only assure the House that it has caused me much anxiety and personal endeavour on behalf of my constituents with the National Ports Council over the years repeatedly to secure moneys under the Harbours Act. I am sure the Minister for Transport will understand precisely what I am talking about in this context. That is how this came about.
Indeed, I said on Second Reading, that the proportion of fixed capital which the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company derived from the Department of the Environment was at rates in excess of 16 per cent. All this derives from the Rochdale Report, but we do not have time to explore that situation tonight.
The further charge made by the hon. Member for Ipswich related to the danger of the port being controlled by a large user. I am glad to see some of our friends from Ulster present. The Port of Lame in Northern Ireland is owned by European Ferries and is used extensively by P & O and other shipping lines in addition to European Ferries.
An interesting contrast emerges. If one looks at the amounts which have now been generously made available to the British Transport Docks Board in respect of 1975—there are supplementary details in respect of the financial performance of each of the major ports—one finds that capital invested at Southampton, owned by the British Transport Docks Board, was about £40 million, and that the pro-

fit last year was £190,000. European Ferries has invested £400,000 at Larne. Profit last year on an exactly similar basis was £1·5 million. The charges at Lame for exactly similar traffic—bearing in mind that shippers other than European Ferries use the port with great joy and alacrity—are a third of the comparable charges at Southampton.
The debate tonight should not concern itself with defaming the British Transport Docks Board. Our concern is to get the Bill into perspective. The hon. Member for Ipswich said that when the smoke and dust had cleared, the issue remained precisely as it was. I question that very much. The issue as it was when this Bill and all the preliminaries thereto first saw the light of day was that the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company was under the threat of immediate nationalisation, which had resulted from the last election manifesto of the Labour Party.
I have in my hand a letter from the past chairman of the company, Mr. Gordon Parker, dated 16th May, which I had hoped to read out on Report the other evening, but, unfortunately, points of order got us entangled. It is worth reading it out now:
Dear Keith,
During the Second Reading of the British Transport Docks Bill a number of complimentary references were made from both sides of the House to Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company. Some play was made that Gordon Parker"—
the letter is signed, "Yours sincerely, Gordon"—
a lifelong believer in free enterprise and a staunch practitioner, had come to the conclusion that the offer by the British Transport Docks Board should be accepted as it was then in the best interests of my company and indeed of Suffolk generally and that £5 million were required for plant etc., the latter being a figment of the speaker's imagination",
whoever that was, on Second Reading.
Consequently, he—Gordon Parker—had agreed to support the Bill before Parliament, as had the Docks Board. In this connection, it is pertinent to observe that, as distinct from London, Liverpool and Hull, Felixstowe 1976 continues to operate at a profit. To my mind, it would be unethical of me—not illegal but unethical—to withdraw from my undertakings. During the Second Reading, the reiteration that I had freely entered the final transaction, whilst correct, might have been accompanied or qualified with equal emphasis"—


there follows a series of important points—

"by reference to certain factors all of which were adverse to the future of my docks and which were proposed by the present Government in its election manifesto:

1. The nationalisation of the ports.
2. Some implications of the dock labour scheme.
3. The reconstitution of the National Dock Labour Board.
4. The National Ports Council to be recreated as a National Port Authority with wider powers.
5. Any other detriments which might be attached to the Dock Work Regulation Bill.
6. The effect of inflation, which the above, to my mind, would merely have exacerbated.
Practically all businesses seek additional capital and my dock was among them. The effect of the first five factors damned any chance of raising further equity at that time, subsequent to the last election.

Yours sincerely,

Gordon."

That is how the Bill came into being, alas and alack.

I presume that, had European Ferries not come along, with a heavy heart I would at least have acquiesced in—I might even have voted in favour of—the Bill. But now European Ferries has come on the scene with a bid which is not merely fairer to the shareholders but offers, as I see it, everything to the dock users, the employees of the port and the shareholders.

The offer of 150p means that the shareholders have been swindled. The figure was fixed last November and is due only in cash, despite inflation, 12 months thereafter, dividends being forgone in the meantime, whereas the European Ferries' offer in full is 195p, or the equivalent thereof, with immediate entitlement to dividends in European Ferries.

The employees in the undertaking have made it clear that they are indifferent to the question of ownership, whether by the British Transport Docks Board or by European Ferries, which can only be interpreted as meaning that they give at least equal marks to European Ferries. The port users have petitioned vigorously against the Bill.

The hon. Member for Ipswich, in referring to the question of the port users, said "We cannot prognosticate. We

cannot determine the situation regarding future port users." They are the important people. It has been evidenced to me by the chairman of European Ferries—who is now chairman of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, given that it controls 97 per cent. of the equity of that company—that a considerable number of protests and queries have been received from users, and that a number of users overseas have not only expressed their concern about the possibility of the control of the dock falling into the hands of the British Transport Docks Board, but have registered the fact that should that happen, they will withdraw their trade.

I do not think that the issue should be presented as it is presented in the Bill, in the context of ownership by European Ferries. Had the bid been conducted in terms of the takeover code of the City Take-over Panel, short of final acceptance, shareholders would have been entirely free to look to any other valid officer, and that would have had to stand on its own feet. The criteria have been overridden by what—

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are being misled. If you look at the annunciator, you will see that the title of the Bill is wrongly given.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I regret that my eyesight is not sufficiently good to see what is annunciated. Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten me?

Mr. Clark Hutchison: The vital word "Felixstowe" is left out. I have just checked on the annunciators, and I have evidence from the Library and I have witnesses.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no doubt that the wording will be changed to "British Transport Docks (Felixstowe) Bill" as soon as possible.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Many hon. Members may be misled about what is happening, because we have had a British Railways Bill and another Bill. The notice is incorrect and therefore I protest.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that everything that is happening within the House is correct. That is the important point.

Mr. Hutchison: What is the point of having annunciators if they are misleading?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair will do its best to ensure that they are put right.

Mr. Stainton: I am happy to have your assurance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the annunciators will be corrected and that everybody throughout the whole of this establishment, if that is a parliamentary term, will be duly alerted to the important proceedings that are taking place.
I must bring my contribution to a very rapid end. I submit that the Bill has changed its flavour entirely. It came forward in the context of this distressing letter which I have read out and which was written as recently as 16th May. The hon. Member for Ipswich can say what he likes about ownership and attitudes. Here is the letter from the man who founded it, who created it. Here are his fears.
In all decency, the Bill should have been dropped by the Government, but they are hell-bent on nationalisation. I should like to think that from the Opposition Front Bench tonight we shall have a positive undertaking that the next Conservative Administration will unwind any ill done by nationalisation, which is the only interpretation which can be put upon this Bill.
Finally, European Ferries Limited has already put £500,000 into the Felixstowe company and is honouring at least the spirit of the so-called contract of the British Transport Docks Board to the extent of discussions and commitments in the capital sense of very large sums indeed. The countervailing argument that has been put forward by various hon. Members—that the funds for this acquisition, were to it be made by the British Transport Docks Board, would come out of the coffers of the British Transport Docks Board and, therefore, that the takeover would not impinge upon the taxpayer or upon the Treasury—is a false argument of considerable magnitude.
What is wrong with Felixstowe and what is wrong with Suffolk in terms of the traffic that comes from and goes to Felixstowe is the roads of Suffolk. The hon. Member for Ipswich full well knows,

and I hope desperately that he agrees, that the construction of the Ipswich southern bypass has for far too long been delayed. I put the question to him, as I put it to the House: how far would not £5½ million go in that direction, plus the recurrent subsidy received by the British Transport Dock Board of no less than £14 million a year? If one normalises the effective interest rate on £124 million borrowings from the Treasury and elsewhere at less than 5 per cent., at 15 per cent. one gets a recurrent annual benefit of subsidy to BTDB of the order of £14 million or £15 million. That is the Ipswich southern bypass, paid for, financed and completed.
That is what is wrong with Felixstowe. That is what is wrong with Suffolk. We do not want the British Transport Docks Board: we want better roads and we want Felixstowe Dock run by European Ferries Limited.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rees: On Second Reading the Minister for Transport commended the Bill to the House in a speech heavy with Freudian overtones. He talked about unions, issue, and love matches. I do not know whether he saw himself as the father of the bride or as the priest or perhaps as the midwife. For myself, I find this a rather squalid little episode. I think that perhaps the Minister has been cast in the rôle of the procureur or—in the Anglo-Saxon—of the pimp.
The real reason for the Bill was revealed in a revealing slip by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley), who said that Felixstowe was too important a port to be left in private hands.

Mr. Tom Bradley: A shipping company.

Mr. Rees: A more acceptable argument, but, on closer analysis, an equally spurious one, was that the opponents of the Bill were endeavouring to use the powers of the House to override a private agreement.

Mr. Weetch: That is right.

Mr. Rees: I shall address myself to that point now as time is not on our side. First, there was no binding agreement for the sale of their shares entered into by the shareholders of the Felixstowe


Dock and Railway Company and the British Transport Docks Board. There was some kind of agreement conditional on the passing of a Bill in the House. All the propositions about the agreement scheduled to the Bill are entirely beside the point, as I shall endeavour to show.
There was an extraordinary general meeting of the company held against the background of Mr. Gordon Parker's extremely gloomy forecast. I shall not address myself to the curious arguments of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) about free enterprise because time does not permit. At that meeting, 48·6 per cent. of the stockholders attended and their holdings in the aggregate amounted to only 63 per cent. In fact, the vote was carried by the holders of only 55 per cent. of the stock of the company.
The House will recall that, in a normal takeover situation, if the purchaser wishes to buy out a dissentient minority he must hold at least 90 per cent. of the shares. That the British Transport Docks Board did not hold. It is true that the board, on behalf of a company but not necessarily on behalf of the shareholders, entered into the agreement, which is in a schedule to the Bill, with the British Transport Docks Board. That agreement, as I pointed out in reply to an intervention by the hon. Member for Leicester, East on Second Reading, did not pass any interest in the shares to the British Transport Docks Board. The interest in the shares passed under a subsequent perfectly respectable and binding agreement between European Ferries and the individual shareholders. It is that agreement that the House is being asked to override now. The interest in those shares passed to European Ferries, and the House is being asked to transfer that interest to the British Transport Docks Board. If there is to be any talk of breach, that is the breach and that is why this is a rather squalid manoeuvre.
It is well understood in commercial life that there can be two competing bids for the same company. If the British Transport Docks Board were to be competing on level terms with European Ferries and were, in fair fight, to have won the acceptance of the individual shareholders, I could not complain. But

that is not the case. If there is any doubt about that, I suggest that a Law Officer be asked to come and enlighten the House. If that be the case, what argument is left? The argument is that the performance of the two competitors is unequal. We are told that the docks board has the greater weight of experience. I am not here to denigrate the activities of the docks board. The board has run a greater number of ports than European Ferries. But still European Ferries is not without experience in this field. If we look at general entrepreneurial experience, the palm must go to European Ferries.
The hon. Member for Ipswich was disposed to draw attention to the return of capital of the docks board—7·8 per cent., he said. In fact, it was 7·8 per cent. before any account is taken of interest. If we look at the accounts of European Ferries for the past few years, we find that its return on capital is between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. after taking account of interest. If we look at the weight of public money involved, I can only remind the House that there is something like £76 million of public money at 3·61 per cent. that the taxpayers have loaned to the docks board, and in all, up to 1972, £123 million. That is the kind of public support that the docks board has enjoyed. I am not prepared to argue the merits of our investments in the docks Board, but, if we are to consider where the weight of public money has been cast, of course it is behind the docks board.
Let us consider the question of labour relations. The hon. Member for Ipswich, on the last occasion but happily not tonight, was disposed to dredge through the whole part of European Ferries, relying on some very doubtful evidence from the trade unions to regale the House with the number of strikes avoided by European Ferries. All I can say is that if the British Transport Docks Board had avoided one major strike, I would have been very happy indeed. I do not want to compare in an unfavourable light the performance of the two companies but if we look at the history of the British Transport Docks Board in Southampton it does not compare with that of European Ferries, certainly not in Dover. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who regrettably is


not here, although he has changed his tune a little—in deference, no doubt, to the criticism of his hon. Friends—was disposed in another Select Committee to commend the industrial relations of European Ferries.
Again, is it right to hand over a port to one principal port user? Neither the hon. Member for Ipswich nor the Minister for Transport has addressed himself to that point if it be a valid argument. If it is, we must look carefully at the role of British Railways, particularly in the port so ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain.)
Since time is short, however, I shall come now to the one point of substance which emerged from the proceedings of the Committee. It was difficult for us on this side of the House to deploy the argument very satisfactorily last week when we did not have the minutes at our disposal. We are very concerned about the future of the port as regards those who work there, those who use it, Trinity College and the town of Felixstowe itself.
There was an undertaking in the agreement scheduled to the Bill between the Felixstowe Company and the British Transport Docks Board under which the docks board covenanted to do certain things. On the face of it, it was an admirable covenant, but on closer analysis it turned out to be not very valuable, for two reasons. First—this point was explored at considerable length before the Committee—it was open to either of the parties to the contract to vary the agreement at any point in the future; secondly, and more importantly, no one other than the two parties to the agreement could enforce it in the future.
In deference to the first of those criticisms, there has been a fairly substantial amendment to the Bill by which the covenant has been made immutable by agreement. It will not now be open either to the board or the company to alter the terms of the agreement. But the second point still remains—who can enforce that agreement other than the Felixstowe Company? If the Bill becomes law, the company will become a wholly-owned subsidiary, a creature, of the docks board, and as such will hardly be very concerned to enforce the covenant. At the end of the day, the cove

nant is subject to the overriding condition that it is subject to any direction which may be given by the Secretary of State.
Last week, in Committee on the Finance Bill, we had occasion to take the true measure of the Minister for Transport in the discharge of his onerous responsibilities. We saw how he regarded the crucial question of how a motor car owner may transfer his number plates. We were told that it was beyond the wit of his civil servants to make in each case more than two transfers a day and that the cost would remain at the Minister's discretion. I shall not explore that point, but hon. Members who read the Hansard of those Committee proceedings upstairs will get a truer appreciation of how the Minister for Transport discharges his political and administrative duties.
At the end of the day, the question is this: who will have a more tender regard for the interests of the port users as a whole, of those who work in the port, of the town of Felixstowe itself and of Trinity College? Mr. Keith Wickenden, engagingly and rather naively, I suggest, told the Committee that his group regarded Felixstowe as the brightest jewel in its crown. Would he be likely to throw that jewel aside? On the other hand, in the hands of the docks board I think that Felixstowe will be no more than a semi-precious stone in one of the many bangles around its rapacious wrist.

9.35 p.m.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: I support my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) in his very valiant fight on behalf of his constituents about the private ownership of the very flourishing dock at Felixstowe. I consider the Bill to be unnecessary. Felixstowe is not a sick port. It is flourishing and prosperous.
Many of my constituents, coming from villages 10 or 15 miles from Felixstowe, work in the dock, and have been doing so for a large number of years. Not one of them has written to me or made any complaint to me about the way in which he has been treated there, or asked me to support nationalisation. From what I can gather, the feeling of


the men who work in the docks is very much in the other direction. They want to remain in private enterprise.
If this enterprise is to be taken over by the British Transport Docks Board, have we any guarantee at all that those who use the docks after nationalisation will not be charged more? According to my information, this is what has happened in other docks taken over by the docks board. Is there any guarantee to the consumers at Felixstowe that their costs will not be raised?
The question whether a user should be an owner is a red herring which has been drawn across the main issue tonight, which is whether the dock shall remain in private ownership or be nationalised. There is a great deal of work which comes to Suffolk as a whole. It is a growing county and much of its success is due to the traffic which has come in through the dock at Felixstowe.
We shall always be grateful to the pioneer, Mr. Gordon Parker, for all the work and faith he has put into his enterprise at Felixstowe. The dock has become considerably more prosperous since our entry into the European Economic Community. We in Suffolk do not want the whole development to be thrown away just because hon. Members on the Government side follow a particular dogma.
The wives of the men who work in the dock are naturally anxious whether their husbands will continue to have a job. Will the dock survive? Will their husbands be thrown out of work? They know how jobs can disappear. Their husbands have good jobs now under private enterprise. We ought to set their minds at rest by voting against this measure once and for all tonight.
After all, in other industries the record of nationalisation is not one of great success. Why should hon. Members opposite want to take Felixstowe into the nationalised sector, unless it is that they are ridden by dogma? I plead for the people who work in the dock, their wives and their children. Let us set their fears at rest tonight by determining that there shall be no nationalisation of the dock at Felixstowe.
I hope that there will be a big vote, but I plead with hon. Members not to vote just for the sake of dogma or on party lines. Why change something successful when we have no certainty that it will be successful under nationalisation?

9.40 p.m.

The Minister for Transport (Dr. John Gilbert): The Government have twice already made their view of this Bill very clear in the debates on Second Reading and on Report. For that reason, I intend to intervene only briefly in this debate to deal primarily with one or two misconceptions about the intentions of the British Transport Docks Board which have come up several times in our debates.
Opposition Members have referred to the position of Trinity College, Cambridge, which owns substantial areas of land in and adjacent to the port. Naturally, the college has been concerned to ensure that it is not adversely affected by the changes of ownership at Felixstowe and has very properly sought assurances from the board on this point. As I understand the position, the college has been mainly concerned to be satisfied that the trade of the port will continue to be maintained and developed under the new ownership. It has also sought assurances that the board's powers of compulsory purchase under the Transport Act 1962 will not be used against it. These points were considered in great detail by the Select Committee, and the Committee was at pains to find satisfactory solutions.
On the first point, the Committee made an amendment to the Bill to make it absolutely clear that the board will be under a binding commitment to promote the interests of the operations of the port of Felixstowe and their further development as opportunity arises. The only qualification to that commitment is that it is made subject to any directions which may be given by the Secretary of State. I am, therefore, glad to add my assurance and that if my right hon. Friend to those already given to Trinity College by the board and to say that neither of us has any intention of giving any directions to the board which could possibly affect Felixstowe.

Mr. Stainton: On compulsory acquisition, is the hon. Gentleman prepared to say whether in another place he will endeavour to write some provision into the Bill itself?

Dr. Gilbert: I am just about to come to the subject of compulsory acquisition. The board gave a categoric undertaking to the Select Committee that it would not seek to make a compulsory purchase order under the Transport Act in respect of any of the Trinity College land at Felixstowe.

Mr. Stainton: That is not binding.

Dr. Gilbert: The board has, therefore, undertaken to put itself on exactly the same footing as the previous owners of the port in respect of powers of compulsory purchase, and in practical terms I do not think that Trinity College has anything to fear in this respect.
I have gone into these points of concern to Trinity College at some length because it is obviously important that it should be dealt with fairly. In my view, the board has met the college on all the points of substance which it has raised. I hope that the college and those who speak on its behalf will take due note of the assurances which have been given and the amendment which has been made to the Bill and will not feel it necessary to pursue their objections to the Bill in another place.
As I said just now, I shall not detain the House by reiterating previous arguments on this subject. I content myself with repeating the three main grounds on which, as I see it, the Bill rests. First, it rests on an agreement freely made between the board and the Felixstowe Company which the House has decided by its votes on Second Reading and on Report that there are no good grounds for overturning. Secondly, we believe that Felixstowe is likely to enjoy excellent management and a secure and prosperous future under the board. Thirdly, it is only sensible to have regard to the Government's general intentions for the reorganisation of the ports industry and to plan for the future of Felixstowe in that context.
We have made it absolutely clear that we intend to bring commercial ports into public ownership, and I reiterate our firm commitment to this intention. With this

prospect in mind, it must make better sense for Felixstowe to be acquired by the British Transport Docks Board now, rather than to leave it temporarily with European Ferries and to face the certainty of a further upheaval in the not too distant future.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: This is the third debate on the Floor of the House in the past few weeks about Felixstowe. This process of debate has had one clear result: it has brought home to the public what is being proposed in this Bill, because Felixstowe is not some quiet East Anglian backwater, but a major British port with an unrivalled record of growth and a high international reputation.
It is a port which provides employment directly and indirectly for over 3,000 people and where labour relations are an example to the rest of industry. It is a port which has been built up by a combination of private enterprise and the combined efforts of management and work force. In short, it is the country's most successful port, but the Bill will force it into the public sector, into the ports empire of the British Transport Docks Board, which already has 25 per cent. of the market but wants 30 per cent.
After three debates, all the arguments have been used in favour of the merger. The first argument of the British Transport Docks Board is based on its modest claim that only it has the size and breadth of experience to run Felixstowe. It is as well that that argument was not used in the past, because if it had been applied when Gordon Parker started to work, when the port was run down and in disrepair, he would have been debarred from taking it over, as would any other innovator or small company.
"Big is beautiful" has been the claim of bureaucrats throughout history, but it is peculiarly inappropriate when applied to a company where local management and decision-making have been a characteristic. The docks board says that Felixstowe will complement its operations. That argument could be applied to any port in the country, but what makes Felixstowe special is that here the board will complement its operations by eliminating its most successful competitor.


The docks hoard already has more than 19 ports. On the East coast it has Hull, Goole, Immingham, Grimsby, King's Lynn and Lowestoft. Surely there is enough scope there for the board to show its paces.
We come to the argument used by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley). He says that it is far too important a national asset to be left in private hands. He said the same thing on Second Reading, and I thought that was a slip of the tongue. Last Tuesday, however, he repeated the claim, and so we must assume that it is meant seriously, but what an argument! By common consent this port was built up by private hands and private effort. Gordon Parker took a risk with his own money, backing his own judgment. He received the loyal support of staff and work force. Felixstowe has been an outstanding success of what can be achieved by private enterprise and by private effort.

Mr. Bradley: The hon. Member is extolling the virtues of Gordon Parker, and I would not decry them. He is, however, creating the impression that the British Transport Docks Board filched Felxistowe from Gordon Parker. Gordon Parker, however, entered very willingly last November into a deal with the docks board, a willing seller and a willing buyer.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Member's argument on that score was demolished in two debates in the past and again effectively a few moments ago. If Felixstowe had been left to public enterprise, the channel would still be silted up and the equipment would be rusted over. If we are talking about the national interest, let us give credit where it is due—to the private hands which built up Felixstowe.
Lastly, there is the argument advanced by the Minister for Transport. Sadly, he missed our last debate to go to the Finance Bill Committee to explain his plans for taxing cherished car numbers. His triumph there was fully reported in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday. It moved my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) to say that, having heard the Minister on cherished transfers, he preferred to listen to him on capital transfers. To hear the Minister at his real rock bottom worst it is necessary to listen to him on company transfers.
It is common knowledge that the docks board's attempt to take over Felixstowe is being resisted there and that a battle is taking place. But, according to the Minister, all is sweetness and light. To use the Minister's own words, the arrangement is a love match. I sincerely hope that the Minister never becomes a marriage counsellor.
I have one word for the Minister from last week's interview with the so-called Colonel Cheeseman. I predict a great future for the Minister on BBC television. Both he and the BBC work on the same principle—"don't let the facts get in the way of a good story."
The facts all point one way. Hon. Members on the Government Benches seek to make something of the agreement with Gordon Parker. My hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) has demolished all that remained of that argument. But even previously Gordon Parker had his problems because of the serious uncertainty caused by the Government's port nationalisation plans.
The threat of nationalisation hung over Felixstowe and it was that threat which forced Gordon Parker into a merger which, in normal circumstances, he would not have contemplated for one moment. To call that a love match is bizarre—and it became even more so when two months later European Ferries made its counter bid. All those most closely involved with Felixstowe want no part in the takeover, and 97 per cent. of shareholders reject the board's proposal. The local branch of the Transport and General Workers' Union has remained officially neutral, but most workers and staff make no secret of their wish to remain independent of the board. Nor is there any doubt about the views of the port users.
Hon. Members have sought to make something of the fact that European Ferries is also a port user. They claim that this has dangers but other port users want to see European Ferries running Felixstowe, not the docks hoard. Representations from customers are not against European Ferries but against the board. Let us not deal in theory when we have the evidence of fact.
We also have the evidence of experience. European Ferries has run


the port of Lame since 1973. Competitors of European Ferries—such as the Scottish arm of British Rail's Sealink—use the port with discrimination. Trade has increased and the labour force has increased.
The House is being asked to impose its view—its will—against the views of the shareholders of the port, the users of the port and against the interests of those who work at Felixstowe or depend on it for employment. The House should not use its power in that way.
A better solution is possible. It is that European Ferries should be allowed to continue to run Felixstowe. It has an outstanding record of growth and nothing has been shabbier than the way in which hon. Members on the Government Benches have tried to denigrate it. It is 100 per cent. British owned and 70 per cent. of those shares are owned by individuals. It has made profits over the past two years and financed a shipbuilding programme of £50 million.
The company has created jobs. In 1965 it employed 300 people. Today its labour force is over 3,500. In many ways it matches the success of the Felixstowe company itself. Both companies started small and both today enjoy a success which means employment for hundreds of men during the most prolonged period of unemployment since the war. Hon. Members should reflect that that is an achievement.
On Second Reading the Minister sought to define Government policy in

relation to Felixstowe. Far from retreating from nationalisation, the Minister said that his objective would be to bring the commercially owned ports into public ownership and that the dock board's acquisition of Felixstowe would be a step in the right direction.

We reject not only the Government's nationalisation plans but the case for Felixstowe becoming part of the British Transport Docks Board. The Government have a majority and may be able to force the Bill through tonight, but I hope that no one believes that that will be the end of the matter. The Conservative Party cannot accept that Felixstowe should continue as a nationalised port or as part of the British Transport Docks Board. An incoming Conservative Government will want to see Felixstowe restored to the private sector. I give the clear undertaking that we shall not be content until the private sector has had the opportunity to buy back Felixstowe.

Felixstowe was built up by private enterprise. The interests of those who work there and those who use the port demand that it should remain in private enterprise hands. We may lose tonight, but one thing I promise Labour Members—that the fight will go on.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 247.

Division No. 153.]
AYES
[9.56 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony


Allaun, Frank
Buchan, Norman
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Anderson, Donald
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)


Archer, Peter
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Armstrong, Ernest
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Ashley, Jack
Campbell, Ian
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Ashton, Joe
Canavan, Dennis
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cant, R. B.
Deakins, Eric


Atkinson, Norman
Carmichael, Neil
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Carter, Ray
Dempsey, James


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Doig, Peter


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cartwright, John
Dormand, J. D.


Bates, Alf
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Bean, R. E.
Clemitson, Ivor
Duffy, A. E. P.


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Eadie, Alex


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cohen, Stanley
Edge, Geoff


Bidwell, Sydney
Coleman, Donald
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)


Bishop, E. S.
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Boardman, H.
Concannon, J. D.
English, Michael


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Conlan, Bernard
Ennals, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Corbett, Robin
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Bradley, Tom
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Ewing Harry (Stirling)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cronin, John
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.




Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Litterick, Tom
Rose, Paul B.


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Lomas, Kenneth
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Flannery, Martin
Loyden, Eddie
Rowlands, Ted


Fletcher Raymond (Ilkeston)
Luard, Evan
Sandelson, Neville


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Sedgemore, Brian


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Selby, Harry


Forrester, John
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McCartney, Hugh
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McElhone, Frank
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Freeson, Reginald
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


George, Bruce
Maclennan, Robert
Silverman, Julius


Gilbert, Dr John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Skinner, Dennis


Ginsburg, David
McNamara, Kevin
Small, William


Golding, John
Madden, Max
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Gould, Bryan
Magee, Bryan
Snape, Peter


Gourlay, Harry
Mallalieu, J. P. W
Spearing, Nigel


Graham, Ted
Marks, Kenneth
Spriggs, Leslie


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marquand, David
Stallard, A. W.


Grant, John (Islington C)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stoddart, David


Grocott, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stott, Roger


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Strang, Gavin


Hardy, Peter
Maynard, Miss Joan
Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.


Harper, Joseph
Meacher, Michael
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Swain, Thomas


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Mendelson, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hatton, Frank
Millan, Bruce
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Heffer, Eric S.
Molloy, William
Tierney, Sydney


Hooley, Frank
Moonman, Eric
Tinn, James


Horam, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tomney, Frank


Howell, Rt Hon Denis
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Torney, Tom


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tuck, Raphael


Huckfield, Les
Moyle, Roland
Urwin, T. W.


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Newens, Stanley
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Hunter, Adam
Noble, Mike
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Oakes, Gordon
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
O'Halloran, Michael
Ward, Michael


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Orbach, Maurice
Watkins, David


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Watkinson, John


Janner, Greville
Ovenden, John
Weetch, Ken


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Owen, Dr David
Weitzman, David


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Padley, Walter
Wellbeloved, James


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Palmer, Arthur
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Park, George
White, James (Pollok)


John, Brynmor
Parker, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Parry, Robert
Whitlock, William


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Pavitt, Laurie
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Kelley, Richard
Pendry, Tom
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Kerr, Russell
Perry, Ernest
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Williams, Sir Thomas


Kinnock, Neil
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lambie, David
Price, William (Rugby)
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Lamborn, Harry
Radice, Giles
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Lamond, James
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Woof, Robert


Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wrigglesworth, Ian



Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Lee, John
Robinson, Geoffrey



Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Roderick, Caerwyn
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Mr. Walter Johnson.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rooker, J. W.



Lipton, Marcus
Roper, John





NOES


Adley, Robert
Biffen, John
Bryan, Sir Paul


Alison, Michael
Biggs-Davison, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Arnold, Tom
Blaker, Peter
Budgen, Nick


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Body, Richard
Bulmer, Esmond


Awdry, Daniel
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Burden, F. A.


Baker, Kenneth
Bottomley, Peter
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Beith, A. J.
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Carlisle, Mark


Bell, Ronald
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Braine, Sir Bernard
Channon, Paul


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Brocklebank-Fowler, C
Churchill, W. S.


Benyon, W.
Brotherton, Michael
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Clark, William (Croydon S)







Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Clegg, Walter
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Cockcroft, John
James, David
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P.(Wanat'd &amp; W'df'd)
Raison, Timothy


Cope, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rathbone, Tim


Cormack, Patrick
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Corrie, John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Costain, A. P.
Jopling, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Critchley, Julian
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Crouch, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Crowder, F. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Kimball, Marcus
Ridsdale, Julian


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Drayson, Burnaby
Knox, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lane, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dunlop, John
Lawrence, Ivan
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Durant, Tony
Lawson, Nigel
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Eden, Rt Hon sir John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Elliott, Sir William
Lloyd, Ian
Sainsbury, Tim


Emery, Peter
Loveridge, John
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Eyre, Reginald
Luce, Richard
Scott, Nicholas


Fairgrieve, Russell
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Farr, John
McCrindle, Robert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fell, Anthony
McCusker, H.
Shepherd, Colin


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Macfarlane, Neil
Shersby, Michael


Fisher, Sir Nigel
MacGregor, John
Sims, Roger


Fookes, Miss Janet
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sinclair, Sir George


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Madel, David
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Fox, Marcus
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spence, John


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Marten, Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fry, Peter
Mates, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Mather, Carol
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maude, Angus
Stanley, John


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Mawby, Ray
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mayhew, Patrick
Stokes, John


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Goodhart, Philip
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Tapsell, Peter


Goodhew, Victor
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Gorst, John
Moate, Roger
Tebbit, Norman


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Molyneaux, James
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Monro, Hector
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Montgomery, Fergus
Townsend, Cyril D.


Gray, Hamish
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Trotter, Neville


Griffiths, Eldon
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Morgan, Geraint
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Grist, Ian
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Grylls, Michael
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Viggers, Peter


Hall, Sir John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wakeham, John


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mudd, David
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neave, Airey
Wall, Patrick


Hannam, John
Nelson, Anthony
Walters, Dennis


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neubert, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Newton, Tony
Weatherill, Bernard


Hastings, Stephen
Nott, John
Wells, John


Haves, Sir Michael
Onslow Cranley
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Hawkins, Paul
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Wiggin, Jerry


Hayhoe, Barney
Page, John (Harrow West)
Winterton, Nicholas


Heseltine, Michael
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Hicks, Robert
Parkinson, Cecil
Younger, Hon George


Holland, Philip
Pattie, Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian



Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Mr. Fred Silvester and Mr. Michael Roberts.


Howell, David (Guildford)
Pink, R. Bonner



Hunt, David (Wirral)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's Sitting, the Seychelles Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Bates.]

Orders of the Day — SEYCHELLES BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

10.14 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place Her Prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

10.15 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Edward Rowlands): I do not think it will be necessary to go through the chequered history of the Seychelles from the 100 years of administration as a dependency of Mauritius until it became a Crown colony in 1903.
The first elections in Seychelles were held in 1948, and thereafter the pace of constitutional development quickened. Organised political parties emerged in the early 1960's and a new constitution, which conferred a measure of self-government, was introduced in October 1970. General elections were held under this constitution in the same year and again in April 1974. On the second occasion both the Seychelles Democratic Party and the Seychelles People's United Party campaigned on a platform of early independence for Seychelles. Over 80 per cent of the electorate voted and very much the greater part supported either one or other of the two parties. Of the 41,833 votes cast, only 11 went to the single candidate who opposed independence.
Following that clear mandate for early independence for Seychelles, a constitutional conference was held in London in March 1975. On that occasion the Seychelles political parties disagreed over some of the essential features of an independence constitution, notably the electoral system and the size and composition of the legislature. They did, however, agree to an interim constitution providing for internal self-government. They also agreed to form a coalition Government, which came into being in June and which has worked very well indeed. The interim constitution was introduced last October.
To help towards a solution of the outstanding matters, an Electoral Review Commission was appointed and made its report in December. Its recommendations were fully taken into account when the constitutional conference was resumed in January 1976. All members of the Seychelles House of Assembly participated in this conference, over which I had the honour to preside. The leaders of the two parties presented a set of joint proposals for a constitution under which Seychelles would, on independence, become a republic. These proposals were, with some minor changes, unanimously adopted by the conference, which also agreed that, subject to the approval of Parliament, Seychelles should become independent at midnight on 28th—29th June 1976. The report of the conference was published as a White Paper and presented to Parliament in February.
The Bill which is now before the House accordingly makes provision for Seychelles to attain fully responsible status as an independent republic on 29th June 1976 and for various connected matters.
Clause 1 provides that on that date the United Kingdom will cease to have responsibility for the government of Seychells. Clause 2 provides for the establishment of Seychelles as a republic on that day.
Clauses 3 and 4 deal with nationality matters. Their general purpose is to remove United Kingdom citizenship from those who become citizens of Seychelles on independence—that is, those con-


nected with Seychelles by virtue of birth, registration and naturalisation, descent, and, in the case of women, marriage. There are exceptions in Clause 4 to this general rule. These cover people who become Seychelles citizens on independence but were born, registered or naturalised in the United Kingdom or a remaining colony, or whose father or paternal grandfather, was in one of these categories. In other words, the aim is to prevent dual nationality arising for the vast majority of Seychellois who will automatically become citizens of Seychelles on 29th June. The nationality provisions do not bestow the right of abode in the United Kingdom on any person in Seychelles who does not have it already.
Clause 5 makes provision for the continuation after independence of laws operating in respect of Seychelles before independence. Clause 6 provides that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council shall dispose of any appeals to Her Majesty in Council which may be pending from any court having jurisdiction for Seychelles provided that leave to appeal has been granted either by the court or by Her Majesty in Council before independence day. Clause 7 and the schedule deal with consequential modifications of other enactments. Clauses 8 and 9 deal with interpretation and short title.
I turn now to more general matters not covered by the Bill but about which the House might wish to be informed. I take this occasion to report the successful outcome of talks relating to the return of the islands of Aldabra, Farquhar and Desroches to Seychelles on independence. The House will recall that these islands were, with the agreement of the Seychelles Government, detached from Seychelles in 1965 to form part of the British Indian Ocean Territory. Under an exchange of Notes with the United States in 1966, we agreed to make the islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory available for defence purposes of the two Governments.
It has subsequently become clear that neither Government have plans for the use of the islands for these purposes, and at the January 1976 session of the constitutional conference it was agreed in principle to return them to Seychelles. Tripartite talks between the Governments

of the United Kingdom, Seychelles and the United States were accordingly held in March this year and the necessary arrangements were made for their return. This will be effected by an Order in Council now in preparation. The British Indian Ocean Territory will in future consist only of the islands of the Chagos Archipelago.
I am glad to inform the House that Seychelles is to extend its policy of strict nature conservancy in the islands which are being returned. In respect of Aldabra, the Seychelles authorities will maintain close consultation with the Royal Society, which has a research station on that atoll. The Royal Society has already held discussions with the Seychelles Government and I am informed that an understanding satisfactory to both has been reached.
We have for many years operated a programme of aid and technical assistance for Seychelles. This will continue after independence. Her Majesty's Government will provide budgetary support amounting to £1·7 million over the first four years of independence and capital aid, in the form of a soft loan amounting to £10 million, over the first two years. We shall also be providing a substantial technical assistance programme.
The successful outcome of the processes which have led to the introduction of the Bill owes much—

Mr. F. P. Crowder (Ruislip-Northwood): I am interested in Clause 4(1)(c) dealing with registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies. Will the hon. Gentleman explain that in rather more detail?

Mr. Rowlands: I have already explained it. Clause 4 covers the small number of cases—I do not suppose that it adds up to more than a couple of score—of people who may, by reason of their descent, be able to claim United Kingdom nationality rather than Seychelles nationality, because of their relationships with the United Kingdom rather than with Seychelles, and no more than another couple of score who may have dual nationality. As I said, the nationality provisions bestow no right of abode in the United Kingdom on any person in Seychelles who does not already have it. Clause 4 covers this point. We


are talking about very small numbers. The hon. and learned Gentleman can raise this matter in the debate, but perhaps I might now go on with my speech. I shall be happy to try to deal with any worries or concern that he might have on Clause 4.
I was talking about the successful outcome of the constitutional conference, which has been supported by all political parties in Seychelles and endorsed by the Government. I want to pay tribute to the Seychelles political parties and to the leaders of those parties, Mr. Mancham and Mr. René for the way in which they have worked together with the object of ensuring a successful and peaceful future for Seychelles. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), who preceded me in my present post and who chaired the first of the constitutional conferences, and the Chairman of the Electoral Review Commission and his team, who helped so much to create a greater accord on electoral matters.
The friendship between Britain and Seychelles, which has endured now for 160 years, will not be affected by the Bill. The achievement of Seychelles independence in no way diminishes this. Indeed, with the growth of modern communications and the progress of tourism in Seychelles, which owes much to the opening of the international airport in 1971, the opportunities for an even closer relationship between our two peoples are greater than ever.
Seychelles has already applied for membership of the Commonwealth. She will be the thirty-sixth member of that great association whose multi-racial principles are to be enshrined in the Seychelles constitution. Indeed, they are exemplified by the inter-racial harmony for which Seychelles is already renowned.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Tugendhat: We concur in everything that the Minister said about the desire of this country for friendship and good relations with Seychelles. The relationship between this country and Seychelles has always been close. Anyone who read the letter which the Prime Minister of Seychelles wrote to The Times after the successful con-

stitutional conference, in which he talked about his regret at the ending of the tie and about his long-held desire that Seychelles should be integrated into the United Kingdom, will appreciate that this colony is leaving its dependence status with nothing but good will towards us and the hope for closer relations with us.
It is appropriate to point out that Seychelles is the thirty-eighth territory to have been granted independence by the United Kingdom. This shows both the scope of the Commonwealth and the success of the decolonisation process in which this country has been engaged. Comparison between what has happened in the territories which were under British dominion and what has happened in Eastern Europe and in the Communist world shows on which side of the line respect and regard for human freedom lies. Almost one-quarter of the countries of the United Nations were once members of the British Empire. Seychelles joins a long line of other territories.
The first point on which we should like to express concern relates to defence. I appreciate that Seychelles, with a small number of people and being islands which are not very easy to defend, wishes to be neutral. I believe that it will not have any armed forces. That is an understandable policy for a country of its size and with limited economic resources, but it does not alter the fact that Seychelles is in a very strategic position. It may not be easy for it to maintain the neutrality, or even freedom from pressure, to which I am sure it aspires. In a divided world, it may not be easy for it to steer the course of an Indian Ocean Switzerland which it might wish to pursue.
The House would be interested to hear from the Minister what defence contact he believes it would be appropriate to maintain. Does he believe that it would be right to have contingency plans? What are his views about the strategic implications of the independence of Seychelles? He mentioned that it was thought that there might be Anglo-American plans for bases in the area, which in the event came to nothing, but this emphasises the extremely sensitive position in the world which Seychelles occupies, and it should not be ignored.
I am sure that all hon. Members were interested in what the Minister said about the arrangements which have been made with the Royal Society. I believe that Seychelles has five species of bird unknown elsewhere in the world and that it has a remark able ornithological interest. We were delighted to hear of the agreement with the Royal Society, which will please many people in this country who perhaps are not always very interested in politics.
However, when the Minister was referring to the arrangements made by the Royal Society, and particularly when he spoke about Aldabra, he did not say what would happen to the British Indian Ocean Territory. I recognise that the British Indian Ocean Territory is very small, but none the less it is there. What arrangements do the Government propose to make for its administration? How is that administration to be financed and sustained? What plans do the Government have for the islands concerned? These matters are directly relevant to the Bill because part of the territory which is to form the Republic of Seychelles was until recently part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, and one must consider the two areas together.
I come to the question of Clause 4 and the matter of citizenship. I realise that the population of Seychelles is extremely small and that we are dealing with a territory quite unlike some of the colonies in Africa and the Caribbean to which independence has been given. In terms of scale, there is no comparison between the two. None the less, a principle is at stake. As emerged from the debate which took place earlier today about immigration, it is very important that the British public should feel that the Government are taking every possible precaution against an increase in immigration into Britain and against this country being faced with a repetition of some of the problems which have emerged with Africa.
I listened with great interest to what the Minister said in reply to the intervention by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder). He said that small numbers of people would be involved. There is a comparison here between this Bill and the Bahamas Independence Act. The Bahamas Independence Act states that

people who acquire one citizenship lose the other. I cannot understand why, at a time when everybody is very concerned about immigration into Britain, the Seychelles Bill should appear to be so loosely drawn.
As the Minister said, it may well be justifiable in the case of Seychelles as such, but we are dealing with a subject of deep concern to the British public. There are other territories that still have to become independent. What is the principle that the Government are applying? Why is this Bill different from the Bahamas Independence Act? Why have the Government seen fit to change the very tight provisions of the Bahamas Independence Act to the very loose provisions in the Bill?
The Conservative Opposition give Seychelles the very warmest of welcomes into the Commonwealth. We are delighted that Seychelles is to join the Lomé Convention. We are delighted, too, that we have very good relations with Seychelles. On the point which causes deep concern, we should like further elucidation from the Minister.

Mr. Crowder: I am very concerned about the phrase in Clause 4(1)(d):
became a British subject by reason of the annexation of any territory included in a colony.
Since when has any territory been annexed as such? I do not like the word "annexed". I do not know what it means. It is a matter which we on this side should carefully explore, otherwise at this time of night these things are apt to go through on a statement by a Minister that "only a few people are involved." In modern times "annexation" is an extraordinary word to find in a Socialist Government's Bill.

Mr. Tugendhat: It must be some time since the United Kingdom annexed any territory—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rockall."]—apart from Rockall. I do not think that there were many creatures apart from birds on Rockall at the time we annexed it. The situation with Aldabra is quite different. Putting aside the point about annexation, the concern expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip—Northwood about Clause 4 is felt not only by him but by other hon. Members. Once this issue is raised, it becomes very important that


the Government should be able to provide us with a fuller explanation than they have done so far. In particular, I should be obliged if they would explain why the perfectly satisfactory provisions of the Bahamas Independence Act do not appear to have been carried forward into this Bill.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: Before the House becomes too involved in the complications of Clause 4, I wish to raise a minor point. Though it may seem somewhat far-fetched to suggest that there is any connection between Birmingham and Seychelles, I have a direct constituency interest. The wildlife of Seychelles and the interest of the Royal Society have been described. The descriptive literature of the wildlife in Seychelles is printed in my constituency.
The present Government of Seychelles are very lax about paying their printing bills. Hon. Members may laugh, but it is the wages of some of my constituents that are affected. There have been three delayed payments in the past 18 months, and there is one outstanding bill now for several thousand pounds due to the Renault Printing Company of Perry Barr and a subsidiary G. T. Phillips and Company.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give an undertaking that discussions will be held with the Government of Seychelles and the Crown Agents with a view to getting the bill paid before we grant independence. I shall not have the opportunity to raise the matter again, and if the bill is not paid before the end of June several thousand pounds due to British workers who have printed very nice documents about what is apparently a very nice natural life in Seychelles will be down the drain. I hope that my hon. Friend will address himself to this point before we start a debate on Clause 4.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: On behalf of my colleagues, I join those who wish Seychelles well on 29th June and thereafter. We also welcome the fact that it is to remain a member of the Commonwealth and is

to be associated with the EEC through the Lomé Convention.
Although we may regard the 92 islands and 60,000 people as being relatively remote and perhaps in world terms insignificant, it is as well to realise that, with the addition of the three islands which have been referred to, assuming that the Law of the Sea Conference extends rights to 200 miles, the whole area takes on a quite considerably increased strategic importance in that part of the world.
Since the development of the airport within the last couple of years, the area has become one of great potential for tourism, and the islands will enjoy, I hope, considerable income from that source, which was very restricted in previous years because the only access was by sea, usually from the coast of Kenya. Like others, I hope that the new Government will pay particular attention to the preservation of the flora and fauna of the islands, and I welcome the agreement in that regard.
There is one peculiar interest which we in the Liberal Party have in the independence of Seychelles, which is in the constitutional settlement of the electoral system. I do not know whether it is widely noted in the House that eight Members of the Parliament there will be elected by the straight first-past-the-post constituency system but that 17 will be elected on a proportionate system from party lists. It is in principle the same kind of dual electoral system as is operated in the Federal Republic of Germany, and we are always being told that it is far too complicated for us to understand. Therefore, we note with interest that it has been agreed by the British Government as appropriate for Seychelles.
I wish the people and the Government of the Seychelles all success after the end of June in their quest for independence.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: For reasons that I shall come to, I do not think that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) need worry about the payment of the bills outstanding to his constituents.
I regret the introduction of this Bill, and it gives me no pleasure to see the severance of the ties which have linked


Seychelles to this country for more than 150 years. Fifteen years ago I used to read reports and take part in study groups considering the constitutional problems of the smaller colonies. Many ingenious schemes for representation were put forward.
Mr. Mancham, the present Prime Minister and future President of the Seychelles Republic, was twice elected on a platform of integration with this country. I regret that, through inertia and lack of imagination, our sensible suggestions have been ignored and that we are now pushing yet another mini-nation out into a hostile world.
In the past there were reasonable grounds for saying that we paid little attention in this House and in this country to the affairs of Seychelles. Indeed, it has been reported that Mr. Mancham first went into politics because he once heard a British diplomat saying "The Seychelles—do they belong to us?" But the charge of neglect can hardly be levelled against us now, because in the debate on the Bill in another place the Government announced that they were making available to Seychelles in the course of the next four years budgetary and capital aid worth£11·7 million.
The Government estimate that the adult population of Seychelles is 58,000, or rather less than the population of my constituency. The amount of aid being made available in the course of the next four years works out at £20,000 per head. This is, I believe, the largest golden handshake in the entire history of de-colonisation, and I do not believe that the hon. Member for Perry Barr, given those figures, need worry about the payment of an outstanding bill of a few thousand pounds.
I am sure that under the rule of order it would not be proper in a debate on the Bill to refer to the £2 million South Penge Park housing scheme in my constituency, for which loan sanction has just been refused by the Government although the scheme is of very great importance indeed to my constituents.
The Minister should tell the House why the Government propose to give aid amounting to £20,000 a head in the next four years to these islands. After all, the proposals run counter to the guidelines set out in the Government's own

White Paper dealing with the distribution of overseas aid which were approved by the House and which laid down that maximum aid should in general go to the countries in greatest need. I do not think anyone could claim that Seychelles, with an attractive tourist industry, could rank among the poorest countries in the world. I am sure that there is a good reason why we are handing over this substantial amount of aid, but before we finally approve the Bill I hope that the Minister will tell us the reason.
The future Leader of the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Roxburg, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), has discussed the question of security in the area, and I note that Mr. Mancham has in the past expressed the hope that the Seychelles islands would be a sort of Switzerland in the Indian Ocean. I share that hope, but I note that Switzerland has a very substantial army, an excellent police force and a large and well-armed citizen reserve. Seychelles, as far as I know, has none of these attributes for maintaining its independence.
Of the nearby territories, I note that the Government of Zanzibar was overthrown a few weeks after independence by the incursion of a platoon of outside subversive agents. I note that in a country even closer to Seychelles—the Comores Islands, a French possession—there has recently been considerable internal disturbance which led to the reintroduction of French soldiers.
I wonder what agreement has been reached on future security arrangements with the Seychelles authorities. It is said that there will be no army, which presumably means that there must be a substantial police force with para-military capabilities. What training agreements have we? Are we to maintain any sort of security mission there? This is a highly sensitive strategic area, and it would be folly to sever ties with Seychelles without making any security arrangements.
I join those who have already spoken in hoping that the independent Seychelles Republic will have a long and happy history. Its ornithological riches have been noted already. We were reminded that there are five species of birds which are known nowhere else in the world. If we believe that merely handing over


independence without making any arrangements for security will lead to the happiness and well-being of the inhabitants of the Seychelles Islands, we deserve to live in cloud-cuckoo-land.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I add my voice to those who welcome this Bill. Events might have turned out differently, but as they have turned out it would be generous of this House and all its Members to wish Seychelles well on the course upon which it and we have embarked. I do so with all my heart. I recall with pleasure the great welcome given to me in the islands when I had some ministerial responsibility.
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) said. I, too, think that we would like to know the purposes for which the aid is being given. It is very difficult to invest money usefully in a territory as little developed as Seychelles. It would be interesting to know how we think we can invest this quite large sum of money on behalf of Seychelles so as to produce a viable future for it.
I take it that most of the money will be devoted to the development of tourism. But if the tourist industry were to be driven too hard and developed too fast, which the sum of money indicated suggests might be the case, many of the aspects of Seychelles which we so much admire would be in danger of being destroyed.
I remember that it was laid down by the last Governor that there should be no more than 400 new hotel rooms each year, that being, he thought, the limit of the capacity of the construction industry to build and of the hotel industry to provide the necessary staff, and so as not to help inflation on its way. I wonder whether that policy will be maintained. I hope that it will be, because nothing could be more fatal to these marvellous islands than the destruction of the very attractions which until now have brought certain numbers of tourists to the area.
What my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham said about defence is very pertinent. After all, Diego Garcia lies not very far away and forms part of British Indian Ocean Territory. There

fore, the vulnerability of that part of the world is very great. Seychelles cannot be equated to some kind of Switzerland. Switzerland lies in a closely-held part of the world, where there are lots of other territories surrounding it. Seychelles stands almost entirely by itself. For anyone wanting to make a landfall anywhere in the Indian Ocean, there is only Gan and Seychelles to which he can go. The islands must therefore be a prime target for anyone who wants a landfall in that part of the world. They would enable the establishment of technological instruments close to what is apparently our key base at Diega Garcia.
I doubt whether the militia on the islands could be raised, or if it were raised whether it could give any account of itself in the circumstances which might face it. Undoubtedly a landing party could be put on any of the numerous islands, and installations could be set up which might not even be discovered. We would therefore like to know what arrangements have been made between the two Governments about defence of the territory.
I listened with great sympathy to what was said by the future Leader of the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), about electoral reform. It is amazing how, whenever British Governments have anything to do with electoral reform in foreign territories, they always provide something different from what we have here. No doubt that is in recognition of the shortcomings of our system. I hope that we shall soon have a Bill to give electoral reform for our other territories, such as Scotland or Wales; we have already done it for Northern Ireland. What is good enough for Seychelles is good enough for the United Kingdom.
I welcome the Bill and wish Seychelles very well.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Edward Gardner: There has always been in this country a strong interest in the people of Seychelles, their affairs and their future. In 1971 a parliamentary delegation which went out there from this House, of which I had the privilege to be leader, was greatly impressed by the desire of the people to maintain the closest links possible with


this country. One of the principal policies of Mr. Mancham's party was that there should be integration with the United Kingdom. I have a sort of wistful regret that policies of that kind were not fully understood or appreciated in this country at the time. The moment has now come when we must realise that the whole situation has changed, and there is no alternative to the Bill.
No one who has been to this part of the Indian Ocean could disagree with the description of Seychelles as some of the most beautiful islands in the world. It is perhaps worth noting that when General Gordon of Khartoum went out in the nineteenth century and saw these islands for the first time he was so astonished by the beauty of the Val de Mai, with its enormous palm trees and luxurious vegetation, that he truly believed he had discovered the original site of the Garden of Eden. It is not surprising, therefore, that the people of Seychelles can look forward to a future based on tourism.
As Chairman of the Anglo-Seychelles Parliamentary Group, I should like on behalf of the group to send my warmest wishes to the people there for a most happy and prosperous future.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Carol Mather: I was also one of the fortunate members of the parliamentary delegation to Seychelles in 1971. We were received most hospitably and we were overcome by the beauty of the islands. At that time arguments raged between the political party led by Mr. Mancham, who wanted even closer ties with the United Kingdom, and the other party, led by Mr. Rena, who wanted independence.
The party for independence was strongly influenced by the Organisation of African Unity, and the party which wished to remain close to the United Kingdom was suspicious of the activities of those in Africa who wanted to see Seychelles break away from the United Kingdom. Those arguments continued for several years. Our Government and country played a somewhat passive role, but, of course, the islands are far away and remote. Eventually the party which wanted integration decided that independence was inevitable.
Mr. Mancham's arguments were interesting. Apart from demanding independence, he and his party preferred to remain part of the British interest. He had seen what had happened to the various countries in Africa which had become independent and he decided that Seychelles would be better off with its existing status. That has now changed and the situation has moved on.
Apart from the beauty of the islands, one is struck most by the extraordinarily interesting wildlife and general ecology. But many of the fascinating places that we saw are threatened by the development of tourism. Hotels have been erected in the most beautiful places and will have an effect on the wildlife and ecology. I well remember Port Launay, a place of outstanding beauty which will be damaged by hotel development.
In addition to the bird life, there are many other interesting facets of the islands. In particular, the islands of Cousin and Cousine are exceptionally interesting. Extraordinary flying foxes are to be found on Praslin, one of the few places in the world where they exist.
Tourism has caused problems. Tourists make great demands on the fish supplies and local inhabitants often have to go without. Tourism has also made enormous demands on the local population, who have been attracted away from their previous occupations, causing a minor revolution on the islands.
I did not catch what the Minister said about the agreement for Aldabra. Will the lease to the Royal Society on the islands last until the year 2005? What are the effects on Clause 4 of the departmental inquiry by the Home Office on British nationality laws? Have these investigations influenced the drafting of the Bill?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) said, the position of Seychelles in the heart of the Indian Ocean is of great strategic importance. No doubt the islands will be hard put to it to maintain their status as a kind of Switzerland in the middle of the Indian Ocean, as they have described it. Already when I was there a Soviet survey ship was charting the water around the islands. In view of the permanent presence of the Soviet navy in the Indian Ocean, we can expect much more interest from the Russians in that direction. Is


there any defence agreement that we should go to the aid of Seychelles if it was being interfered with?
I wish the very friendly people of Seychelles well in their independence.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. F. P. Crowder (Ruislip-Northwood): I welcome the Bill but not its drafting. Clause 4(1)(d) reads:
became a British subject by reason of the annexation of any territory included in the colony.
"Annexation" is a word that Labour Members will understand. They have annexed enough property within this country. Why are those words included? What is meant by the expression "any territory within the colony"? This is clumsy, broken-down drafting in the extreme.
I do not like the word "annexation". It reminds me of Warren Hastings, India in the old days, the Far East and so on. Under what circumstances have a Labour Government annexed anything in the Seychelles?

Mr. Rowlands: If the hon. and learned Gentleman read the subsection properly, he would see that it read "included in a colony", not "the colony". It is not Seychelles; it is "a colony".

Mr. Crowder: Why "a colony"? Is not the Minister dealing with Seychelles? What other colony has he in mind? Answer. You cannot answer. If you will not answer—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman keeps saying "you". "You" in this House means me. The hon. and learned Gentleman has been here too long not to know.

Mr. Crowder: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I think that never in your history in the House, which I think dates back before me, to 1945, have you seen the word "annexation", have you? I am only too delighted to address you in those terms, Mr. Speaker.
It is disgraceful that in a Bill of this sort we should have the word "annexation". It is unattractive and unnecessary and it means absolutely nothing. How it ever came to be included, I do not know. All I ask is that the Minister should remove it.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Rowlands: A number of points have been raised. The first concerns the question of the islands' defence future in relation to regional security. Seychelles has decided to be a non-aligned, independent nation. It is not right for us to be pressed to sign defence guarantees or enter into defence agreements with a new country which wishes to be independent in terms of defence and foreign policy.
However, Seychelles and the United States Government have reached agreement on the continuation of the American satellite tracking facility and the associated financial arrangements. That augurs well for a policy of close working relations without jeopardising the nonalignment and feeling of neutrality strongly expressed by the democratically-elected leaders of Seychelles. Concepts of defence guarantees and trying to bind Seychelles into a one-sided military pact are not the issues tonight.
Certain changes will be necessary in the administration of British Indian Ocean Territory. Senior officials of the Foreign Office will take over the administration of the territory in place of the Governor and Deputy-Governor of Seychelles who exercise those duties at present. The Commissioner's representative at Diego Garcia will remain as Royal Navy liaison officer. These and other changes which may be necessary in the administration of BIOT will be provided for by Order in Council.
I have been asked a number of questions on aid. I hope that the geography of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) is better than his arithmetic. He worked out a figure of £20,000 per head. In fact, it is £200 per head over four years—£50 per person per year. That is a relatively modest sum in comparison with the hon. Member's calculation. There is capital aid and budgetary aid. I think that the hon. Member confused them.
We do not deny that we are giving Seychelles a generous amount of aid. The hon. Member for Beckenham claimed that our proposals contradicted our White Paper on aid. In the White Paper, however, we say that one of the first charges on the aid programme is the territories for which we have specific


responsibilities, particularly newly independent territories like Seychelles.
It is sensible, within the concepts of the White Paper, to ensure that a territory going forward to independence has a generous and reasonable financial and economic aid programme to accompany it. I do not think that our proposals are excessive. They are reasonable and generous. Obviously Seychelles Ministers pressed me, when they were here recently, to increase the aid, but I regard it as a reasonable and generous deal.
I was also asked about how the aid will be used. The hon. Member for Beckenham suggested that most of it would be spent on hotels and the like, but most of the money will be used for social and educational infrastructure, and there will be discussions between us and the Seychelles Government during the development of the aid programme.
I cannot answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) about his constituents' bills, but I am sure his remarks will have been noted and I hope that the bills will be paid, but I do not think that the aid programme should be used to pay the debts of individual firms. I am sure that the Seychelles Government will live up to their reputation and ensure that the bills are paid.
The hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Norwood (Mr. Crowder) raised a number of questions on citizenship as he laboured the point about Clause 4. There are some people who, besides having connections with Seychelles, have a suitably close connection with the United Kingdom or remaining independent territories. They should be able to keep their citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies under this provision.
A great deal has been made about Clause 4(1)(d) concerning the word "annexation". As I have pointed out, it is basically a historic provision to ensure that, if there are people whose ancestors, as described in the clause, were citizens of territories which were annexed 50 to 100 years ago, they nevertheless will not be outside the provisions of the clause. It is an omnibus clause to ensure that the very odd or occasional case is covered.
Anyone who has dealt with cases of citizenship and the hundred and one problems that can arise for the individual, and the anomalies that occasionally occur, will realise that there is a need to draft even in terms of territories annexed perhaps 50 to 100 years ago, where the father or paternal grandfather was a citizen of that annexed territory, and a person who by descent is covered under this provision should not now be prevented from exercising the right that we should like to provide. The clause is trying to ensure that the very unusual case will not turn up some time in the future and bedevil us or cause individual injustice or problems.

Mr. Crowder: I wonder whether we should remove the word "annexation". It could be replaced by the phrase "taken over" or something else. It is unattractive nowadays.

Mr. Rowlands: I find it unattractive today, too, but I am sure that it has meaning in terms of the actual problem of defining the territory of annexation historically. I am a historian but not, I am glad to say, a colonial law imperial historian. The word "annexation" is used, and it must be reflected in present-day legislation in that respect. I agree that it is offensive now, in 1976, but we are trying to cover the case of someone whose rights may descend from a father or paternal grandfather under the provisions of the clause.

Mr. Tugendhat: Who exactly are these people who have a special relationship with the United Kingdom? We quite accept that, by definition, anything to do with Seychelles is likely to mean that they will be few in number, but we are creating, or following, a precedent. What precedent is the Minister following? Why can he not be more explicit about who these people are who have this special relationship with the United Kingdom?

Mr. Rowlands: I suspect that it is because we do not know and have not analysed the birth certificates of individuals who at present live in Seychelles but who may qualify under this provision to maintain United Kingdom citizenship. It will be on a very individual basis, and I cannot define a particular section or group. To my knowledge, there is no


sort of well-known community within Seychelles such as was mentioned, perhaps, in debates in the last few weeks about a particular community in Malawi. There is no close-knit section of the community. We are trying here to provide for individual cases rather than a specific section of the community. That is why it is difficult to define or outline in considerable detail who might qualify.
However, the clause obviously gives rights to two types of person, in general terms. First, there is the person who has a connection with Seychelles and who has suitably close connections with the United Kingdom or a remaining dependent territory. He can keep citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies under Clause 4(1), subject to the subsections laid out. Then there is subsection (3), which is very specialised, enabling a person who becomes a Seychelles citizen on independence to keep his citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies of his father or grandfather was locally naturalised in a remaining dependent territory which prior to the British Nationality Act 1948 had local naturalisation laws and that ancestor had died before the Act came into force on 1st January 1949.
One can see from the explanation that we are trying to deal with the sort of individual who may well find that he is unjustly treated or should have a right that is not covered unless we make such a provision. I cannot forecast numbers, but it is not a large section of the community in Seychells to which we are giving some special right. It is more for the few individuals who might be concerned. It will come to no more than 100 or 200 if one adds dual nationals and those who retain their United Kingdom citizenship. The number of dual nationals can be no more than a couple of score. It is impossible to make a detailed assessment, and I hope that it will be considered reasonable to safeguard an individual's citizenship rights.
I was asked whether we had taken into account the review of nationality. We cannot do so. The review is not complete, its findings have not been published, there has been no consultation or debate and, therefore, it would be wrong and improper to anticipate in any independence Bill such as this what may emerge

from the review. The citizenship provisions here follow tradition and are based on our own concept of nationality as written into the 1948 Act.
The hon. Member for Beckenham basically does not want Seychelles to be independent. I have to tell him that it is the wish of the overwhelming majority of the people of Seychelles that they become independent, whatever may have been their views in the past. They are going independent under a stable coalition Government. The parties have buried their differences of opinion in order to achieve independence, and this is a fair indication of what we hope will be a successful and reasonably prosperous new independent State. My personal regret is that because my wife is expecting a baby I shall not be attending the independence celebrations on 28th June.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVERS)

11.18 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): I beg to move,
That the Road Traffic (Drivers' Ages and Hours of Work) (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 581), a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th April, be approved.
This Order is a parity measure which corresponds to the Road Traffic (Drivers' Ages and Hours of Work) Act 1976, which extended only to Great Britain and which recently received Royal Assent. The Order amends the minimum ages for driving certain classes of motor vehicles in Northern Ireland and gives the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland wider powers to make regulations about drivers' hours. These changes enable the Northern Ireland law on these matters to conform to the requirements of


EEC Regulation No. 543 of 1969. The Order has been made by the "urgent" procedure because the provision of that Regulation relating to minimum drivers' ages came into force for internal journeys within the United Kingdom on 1st January 1976 and it is, therefore, desirable that Northern Ireland law should be brought into conformity with the minimum delay.
Article 1 of the Order makes provision for its coming into force. The provisions of the Order relating to changes in minimum driving ages have a limited retrospection to 1st January 1976, which is the date of the application of the EEC Regulation. Originally it was envisaged that the provisions for the harmonisation of the Northern Ireland minimum driving age legislation with Article 5 of the EEC Regulation would be brought into operation on that day, and a supply of amended driving licences was ordered for that date. However, harmonisation on 1st January 1976 did not prove possible, and the retrospective provisions are therefore required to validate the licences already issued in the new form. The provisions relating to drivers' hours will come into operation on a future date to be appointed by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland.
Article 3 of the Order deals with changes in the minimum driving age and substitutes a new section for Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act (Northern Ireland) 1970. The effect is that anyone below the specified minimum age for the various categories of vehicles will be disqualified from holding a licence. The new provisions, however, apply only to first applicants for a licence. The main effect of the substitution will fall on 17-year-olds, who on first licensing will be restricted to driving goods vehicles not exceeding 3·5 metric tons permissible maximum weight—about 30 cwt unladen—instead of their present entitlement of 3 tons unladen. Persons between the ages of 18 to 21 will on first licensing be restricted to goods vehicles not exceeding 7·5 metric tons permissible maximum weight instead of their present entitlement of 3 tons unladen.
Where passenger vehicles are concerned, new drivers under 21 years of age will be limited to nine seaters including the driver. At present, under Northern Ireland law such persons are

entitled to drive passenger vehicles up to 3 tons unladen weight irrespective of their seating capacity, subject of course to the overriding requirements which apply should the vehicle in question be used to carry passengers for hire or reward. No one over 21 years of age will be affected at all.
The opportunity is also being taken to revise the threshold for the heavy goods vehicle driver licensing scheme from its present 3 tons unladen weight limit to 7·5 metric tons permissible maximum weight. Schedule 2, however, contains provisions which safeguard existing entitlements.
Articles 4 and 5 of the Order deal with drivers' hours and take account of the relevant provisions of EEC Regulation 543/69. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport has already explained to the House during the passage of the Road Traffic (Drivers' Ages and Hours of Work) Bill the United Kingdom position on this Regulation. Application has been deferred until 1st July 1976 and the Commission is preparing proposals for the amendment of the Regulation itself which, it is hoped, will provide for a further period of deferment.
Drivers' hours entitlements in Northern Ireland are governed by the Road Traffic Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 and permit an 11-hour driving day as against the 10 hours applicable in Great Britain. I should mention at this point that action is in hand to bring the maximum driving day in Northern Ireland into line with the standard 10 hours in Great Britain. Article 4 therefore provides power for the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland to ensure capatibility between the 1970 Act and the EEC Regulation and to extend the enforcement provisions of the 1970 Act to any directly applicable Community provisions. This article also makes provision for supplementary and consequential provisions particularly in relation to record-keeping.
Article 5 extends the jurisdiction of courts to try summarily prosecutions for the contravention of the drivers' hours and record requirements of the 1970 Act. At present in Northern Ireland such offences are dealt with under the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964, which provides for offences of this nature to be dealt with by a court of


summary jurisdiction sitting in the county or county borough in which the offence was committed or in which the defendant resides. This article overcomes difficulties which can arise under existing powers by providing that proceedings can be instituted in a court with jurisdiction for a place where the person charged was driving when evidence first came to light, the place where the offender is or where he resides when proceedings are commenced, or the place where the offender normally resides.
I commend the Order to the House.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: A number of questions arise on this Order and perhaps I might put them successively to the Minister in the hope that he may have the opportunity to respond.
As the Order shows upon the face of it, it is being debated after it has been brought into force because we are operating under the urgency provisions. But I was not clear how the urgency had arisen. The Minister appeared to say that in some respects the things for which the Order provides were already in force since 1st January.
So far as Great Britain goes, there has been an Act of Parliament which received Royal Assent on 25th March, so that Great Britain managed to survive from 1st January to 25th March until the proper legislative procedures were gone through. I am not clear, therefore, why the remaining three or four weeks until the Order could be considered before its implementation by the House were so vitally urgent.
I appreciate that other provisions, as I understand it, of the Order come into force on 15th April and that it is obviously desirable that they should come into force simultaneously in all parts of the United Kingdom. Clearly 15th April was urgent in respect to the date of 13th April, on which I see the Order was made. Had the Order, however, been made no earlier than Royal Assent to the Great Britain Bill, which is reproduced by the Order, there would have been no need on that ground for the urgency procedure to have been applied and we could have debated the Order in the due manner.
I make something of this point because the whole House would agree that, while

it is clearly necessary under this procedure that there should be some provision for genuine urgency requirements, we should be especially vigilant to ensure that urgency is not claimed unless a strong case can be made for it. I do not believe, if I have fully understood what the Minister of State said, that he has succeeded in making the case for urgency in any natural sense of the term.
In that connection, I was even more puzzled when I thought I heard the hon. Gentleman say that the Order would enable licences to be validated which have been in issue since 1st January.

Mr. Concannon: indicated assent.

Mr. Powell: The Minister assents that I have not misunderstood him. If that is the case, are we to understand that for the last three or four months, people not just in Northern Ireland but in Great Britain, where the Act did not receive Royal Assent before 25th March, have been going around with invalid licences? That is an alarming state of affairs. While clearly it must be put right, it seems to me to require some more explicit recognition of the exceptional circumstances in which we have had invalid licences for three or four months without being able to know anything more about it than has so far been vouchsafed by the Government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I expect that you, like other hon. Members, have read the Order with the schedules and done your best to relate it to the previous legislation. I do not conceive that you have found this a very enjoyable occupation or that any other hon. Member has done so who has attempted it. There is a general prejudice against what is called legislation by reference. Yet we all know that a good deal of legislation by reference is both unavoidable and convenient. But there can rarely have been a more disagreeable example of complicated legislation by reference than this Order. Both in the body of the Order and in the schedules, the user must go to vast trouble to amend the existing legislation to discover what will be the law after the Order.
Although there may be circumstances in which legislation of this kind, even of this complexity, is justified, I urge that, for legislation governing such matters as drivers' hours and the age of drivers


entitled to drive certain types of vehicle, it is particularly desirable that he who drives may read. If firms are wise, they will in circumstances of doubt seek the advice of a solicitor, but on the whole we want to make Orders and pass laws which will be broadly intelligible to people who are to be bound by them. It would be a bold advocate of such Orders who would say that those who were to be bound by them would find them readily intelligible.
There is another circumstance which further aggravates the question of legislation by reference. I want to illustrate what I mean by referring the Minister of State to paragraph (2) of Article 3—or, rather, paragraph (2) of the new Article 2 to which effect is given by Article 3 of the Order. That paragraph gives the Department—not the Secretary of State—power by Regulations to provide for totally different classes of vehicle and corresponding ages from those enacted in Article 1, paragraph (1), of the Order or in the corresponding section of the Great Britain Act.
That presents two difficulties. First, it is unnatural that Parliament should enact a series of limitations on ages and types of vehicle and should in the next provision apparently endow the Secretary of State with the right to replace those provisions by anything he thinks fit. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to explain the reason for such an apparently wide and remarkable dispensing provision being given to the Minister in Great Britain and to the Department in Northern Ireland.
It may well be that the intention is to use this regulation power only for certain specific purposes and within certain limits. If so, I hope that those specific purposes and limits will be made clear so that they are on the record. That would be a help. Nevertheless, I still say that it is not right that powers for subordinate legislation was more general than are required for what is to be done and for the purposes which are to be served should be conferred by statute.
So much for the general point which applies to the Order and to the Great Britain legislation. In the case of Northern Ireland, this is a regulation-making power within a regulation-making power. In Great Britain, those aggrieved by the Regulations which the Minister

in Great Britain may make can pray against them. If they believe that he is abusing or exceeding the intentions or proper use of the power, they can initiate a debate in the House. We in Northern Ireland cannot do that, because, as this is a regulation within an Order in Council, there is no power to challenge it and, short of the report of the scrutineer—that industrious scrutineer whose proper title escapes me for the moment but whose first five reports have now happily been published and placed in the hands of hon. Members—we have no redress. Therefore, this regulation-making power hits us even more anomalously in Northern Ireland than it hits those who will be affected by it in Great Britain.
While I am referring to Article 3 of the Order, perhaps I may put a point of detail, of which, I confess, I have failed to give the Minister of State notice, on the wording of the proposed new Article 2. It refers to a person holding or obtaining either a driving licence "or a provisional licence", whereas in the corresponding Great Britain provision I find no reference to a provisional licence. It may be that there is here some difference in Northern Ireland draftsmanship, but I find it surprising that there should be this anomaly between the two parts of the United Kingdom. Perhaps the Minister of State will be able to clear that up.
The Minister of State made it clear that the object with hours of work in both parts of the United Kingdom was to enable the new law of the EEC to come into effect on 1st July. Could he elaborate a little more on the distinction between the EEC law which is to come into effect throughout the United Kingdom on 1st July and those parts of that law not yet in effect that we hope to cause to be amended?
I think that there is some confusion between the 10-hour stipulation and the 8-hour stipulation, if I may so describe them. I understand, but the Minister of State will correct me if I am wrong, that the 10-hour requirement will come into force as from 1st July, but that we are opposing a further reduction of that period, at any rate for the foreseeable future.
There is another technical matter. It is whether the new Regulations involve the tachograph and the mechanical


recording of driver's hours and running of vehicles. Perhaps the Minister of State will make it clear whether these Regulations will enable the tachograph to be brought into force in Northern Ireland. I hope that that is not the case, but certainly there are many in Northern Ireland who are under the apprehension that these Regulations will have that effect. I hope that the Minister of State will make clear whether that is so. He will be aware that with the sea link and the sea journey there are certain complications in the working of mechanical monitors which would not apply within Great Britain.
Finally, does the distinction between international and internal journeys, which has been reproduced in the Order from the Great Britain Act, include as international journeys journeys between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic?
I apologise both to the House and to the Minister of State for having thrown at him a whole series of detailed questions, but this is a difficult Order to interpret by any construction and it will nevertheless directly affect and create penalties and offences for a potentially very large number of citizens of Northern Ireland. It is, therefore, no more than right that we should seek to understand exactly what the Order is bringing into effect.

11.39 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Hon. Members from Northern Ireland and, indeed, hon. Members representing other constituencies will want to make their points in the limited time available to us, and I shall confine my remarks to Article 4 concerning drivers' hours of duty. The Minister of State said that this was a parity measure. It is also, I suppose, a harmonisation measure for the European Community.
In Northern Ireland the 11-hour driving day is to be brought down to the 10 hours prevailing in Great Britain. The EEC Regulation—543/69—lays down eight hours instead of the British 10 hours. Here the ball is, I gather, still in play, but when the EEC Regulation comes into force—is it, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, 1st July?—I suppose that the Department of the Environment of Northern Ireland will have no power to vary the hours of the

driving day, whatever the views of those affected in the Province may be. Excessive hours at the wheel are a hardship to drivers and a danger on the road, but I wonder what the trade union view on all this is. Has it been expressed to the Northern Ireland Office? The point raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South about the tachograph is also of concern to the workers in the industry.
Consideration must also be given to the effect of this Statutory Instrument on the Northern Ireland economy. High fuel and transport costs already bear very heavily. The Belfast-Heysham ferry, which was the subject of debate in the House, is closed. The road journey from Lame to Stranraer is considerably longer and takes more than eight hours. Drivers are compelled to make an overnight stay. If this time limit is imposed, as I suppose it will be, higher prices will result for animal feeding stuffs and other basic feeding stuffs in Northern Ireland. I wonder what calculation has been made of the economic consequences of this measure.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I am in some sympathy with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who questioned the way in which the Order had been brought before the House. Since the imposition of direct rule—we have been told by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it is positive direct rule—one would hope that many of the problems which have been brought about by direct rule have been eased, to the satisfaction of Northern Ireland and its Members. However, the Order says on the face of it:
by reason of urgency … this Order requires to be made".
I reinforce what was said by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison). What discussions have taken place with the trade union movement in Northern Ireland? I hope that I and certain Opposition Members, being elected representatives from Northern Ireland, would be aware of the trade union viewpoint on the matter. I hope that the Order was not brought before the House without any discussion having taken place.
It may be that the legislation which is in force in Great Britain is entirely suitable, but Northern Ireland is a much


smaller land mass than we have in Great Britain and the restricted hours of driving envisaged by the Order may not be totally suitable to that geographical area. I ask again: have discussions taken place?
It is important that the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should be drawn to the disquiet which is being expressed in certain circles in Northern Ireland about the effects of direct rule and about how these matters are brought before the House. I understand that in Northern Ireland tonight there is a meeting of the UUUC in Glengall Street at the party headquarters, and sentiments have been expressed that within a few hours that party will tell this Parliament that it will take direct action—

Mr. Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Without wishing to be captious with a fellow Northern Ireland Member, may I suggest not only that the question that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has just raised cannot possibly be relevant to the subject matter of the Order but that, while subjects are sometimes raised which are slightly outside the scope of debate, it could not possibly be in the public interest that matters of which no one in the House is fully informed should be brought into debate in this way.

Mr. Fitt: I was merely illustrating—and, indeed, to some extent was agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman—the dissatisfaction of hon. Members from Northern Ireland about the way this Order was introduced. I was also illustrating—the Minister must be aware of this, because it is common knowledge tonight—that other people in Northern Ireland are objecting to direct rule and have taken direct action against the Government. It is so important that I understand that the hon. Member for Antrim. North (Rev Ian Paisley), who I thought would have been here tonight, has issued a statement saying that tomorrow he intends to seek the support of the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave)—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. When the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) raised his point of order, I had not heard exactly what line the hon. Member for

Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was intending to take, but having heard the hon. Gentleman further I must ask him to desist from that lie and confine himself to the terms of the Order.

Mr. Fitt: I shall comply with your direction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But I think that what has been happening in Northern Ireland tonight highlights the situation. I am prepared to co-operate in any way I can with the Government, including their introduction of Orders such as this, but there are others in Northern Ireland who are not prepared to cooperate and, indeed, are prepared to engage in direct confrontation with the Government.
On the face of its there are no grounds for objecting to the Order, but I should like to hear whether the Government have engaged in discussions with those who will be affected. I should like to be assured that this is the case with any other Orders that are brought forward.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I understand that the Order has the general approval and consent of those who represent the people who run the road haulage industry in Northern Ireland, but, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I am given to understand that many queries and points need clarification. I am sure that the team of Ministers at the Department will do their best to establish a forum and method of making readily available information and the interpretation of many of the regulations listed in what my right hon. Friend has called a most complicated piece of legislation. I am sure that the Minister will deal with the point raised by my right hon. Friend.
I take the liberty of raising one point which, I feel, is of some substance. It comes under Article 3, dealing with the training scheme and the training centre for drivers. The main training school is situated on the former airport at Nutts Corner and discharges its traffic on to the B101 road, which is one of the main arteries from the present Belfast Airport to Belfast, particularly to the south of the city, and Lisburn.
It has been put to me—and I have confirmed it by personal observation—that considerable traffic congestion is being caused on this road because the training


vehicles, mostly lorries of very great length, tend to use that section of the road. Both branches of that road consist of very narrow, hilly, country roads, and at many points visibility is greatly restricted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) drew my attentioin to matters which were not directly in order. We are discussing the Road Traffic (Drivers' Ages and Hours of Work) Order; we are not discussing the subject matter that the hon. Gentleman is now raising.

Mr. Molyneaux: Article 3(5) quite clearly states that
'training scheme for drivers' means a scheme for training persons to drive vehicles of a class in relation to which the age which is in force under this section but apart from any such scheme is 21 years.
Article 3(6) states that
No approved training scheme for drivers shall be amended without the approval of the Department.
I submit, with respect, that it is asking a little too much of the Minister to expect him to exercise that function in amending the scheme and the regulations if he does not have the benefit of the advice of the elected representatives from Northern Ireland.
It is in that context that I make the point to the Minister that the very restricted road leading from the training centre—for which the Minister will by this Order now be directly responsible—is too narrow for the traffic it has to carry, even as things stand, without the addition of five or six articulated lorries.
On a previous occasion when travelling in the direction of the centre, I encountered no fewer than five articulated vehicles on a stretch of one and a half miles of that road, and each of those vehicles had a queue of ordinary vehicles behind it, endeavouring to overtake. This, quite naturally, was creating a traffic hazard. I am sure that the Minister, as Minister of State responsible for the environment, would not wish to add to the hazards already existing in Northern Ireland—hazards which exist to perhaps a greater extent than in many other parts of the United Kingdom.
I never speak of problems here if I am not in a position to suggest a remedy.

The remedy which I modestly suggest is that if four of every five vehicles were to turn left they would come, in about 500 yards, to what is reputed to be the largest roundabout in Northern Ireland—a roundabout for which, again, the Minister's Department is directly responsible. They would have the choice of no fewer than six main roads, and if they were to select any one of them the drivers could obtain a wide variety of experience of rural and city traffic.
In this way the Minister of State would earn the gratitude and the good will of all the other road users in Northern Ireland and would contribute in no small way to improving the standards of road safety in Northern Ireland, which, I assume, is the real purpose of the establishment of the drivers' training centre to which the Order refers.

11.54 p.m.

Mr. Concannon: With the permission of the House, I shall endeavour to answer the points which have been put to me. As to those put by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), the emergency procedure in regard to the EEC Regulation relating to drivers' ages arises from the coming into operation on 1st January 1976 of the provisions of Article 5 of EEC Regulation 543/69. By virtue of Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome, as enumerated in Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, the EEC Regulation took effect notwithstanding the provisions of domestic legislation.
The Regulation, however, is not comprehensive in that it applies only to certain classes of vehicle and people in Northern Ireland. To avoid any confusion which would arise from this position, it was thought best to revoke all existing domestic driving entitlements and to express those remaining in the EEC entitlements under this draft Order. It has caused some difficulty. We had hoped that all these would come together before the starting date. But certain things went a little wrong on this, and the harmonisation has now to take effect on a retrospective basis.

Mr. Powell: Is it only in Northern Ireland that there has been this anticipation, as it were, of a change in our own law, or


does it apply to the whole of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Concannon: With the EEC Regulation coming in for the whole of the United Kingdom from 1st January, I assume that with Royal Assent not coming until 25th March, similar difficulties have been encountered elsewhere.
As for Article 3(2), the purpose is to provide power to make Regulations varying the classes of vehicles and the ages assigned to them without the need for further primary legislation each time an EEC Regulation modifies the age provision of Article 5. This follows a similar provision in the Road Traffic (Drivers' Ages and Hours of Work) Act 1976, and the procedure will enable Northern Ireland to follow speedily any changes in Great Britain's driver licensing law. This is, in effect, to give us power to implement as quickly as possible any further EEC Regulations in this respect which may come along.
With regard to drivers' hours, I said in opening that application had been deferred until 1st July 1976. The Commission is preparing proposals for the amendment of the Regulation itself, which it is hoped will provide a further period of deferment. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) said, the ball is still in the air.
The 1970 Act in Northern Ireland permits 11 hours' driving in Northern Ireland. Consultations have been taking place with all the bodies concerned in Northern Ireland, and we shall consider the points which have been made to us when we are thinking of reducing the period to 10 hours.
As for the other point in Article 3 concerning provisional licences, although there are drafting differences between the Great Britain Act and the Northern Ireland Order there is no difference between them in their effect on a person disqualified from holding a driving licence or a provisional licence.
I am pleased to say that tachographs are not affected by the Order. The EEC Regulation came into operation for internal journeys in the United Kingdom on 1st January 1976. However, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport advised the House, the Government have told the Commission that it is impractical

for the United Kingdom to meet this timetable.
Transport journeys betwen Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic are international journeys within the context of the EEC Regulation and, therefore, are subject to the restriction on driving time of eight hours per day.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) raised some issues which have been the subject of rumour. I can assure my hon. Friend that if anyone breaks the law in Northern Ireland it is a matter for the police.
I have taken on board the matters referred to by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). I shall look at them seriously to see whether anything can be done about his suggestions.
With those few remarks, I commend the Order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Road Traffic (Drivers' Ages and Hours of Work) (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 581), a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th April, be approved.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (SEX DISCRIMINATION)

12.1 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): beg to move,
That the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved.
The purpose of the Order is to apply to persons living and working in Northern Ireland provisions similar to those applying to persons living and working in other parts of the United Kingdom under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
Much of the information contained in the White Paper "Equality for Women" (Cmnd. 5724) on the status of women in Great Britain applies equally to women in Northern Ireland. Indeed, evidence shows that the position of women in Northern Ireland in relation to equality of treatment in employment, the provision of goods services and facilities and other matters is in many cases worse than that of women elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
It has been said with some truth that Northern Ireland is a male-dominated society, but there are signs that women there are becoming less prepared to accept a subordinate position. The economic pressures on young people to make their way in industry, business and the professions has meant that an increasing number of women are competing with men for employment and promotion. It is only just that they should be accorded an opportunity of making their way by their industry and ability in the same manner as their male colleagues, and I believe that the provisions of the Order will enable them to do so.
In general, the Order prohibits discrimination in employment on grounds of sex or marriage and discrimination in the provision of goods facilities and services on grounds of sex. Indirect discrimination, instruction or pressure to discriminate and discriminatory advertising are also prohibited. The employment provisions apply equally to employment for the purposes of a Minister of the Crown or for a Government Department, and appointments to public bodies by Ministers of the Crown or by Government Departments are required to be made without discrimination. The Order also amends the Equal Pay Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 to make it clear that it applies only to contractual terms of employment and to harmonise it with the provisions of the Order.
Certain exceptions are made. They relate, for example, to employment in a private household or in a firm employing not more than five persons. The main exceptions, however, lie where sex can be regarded as a genuine occupational qualification for a job. The criteria for determining genuine occupation qualification are set out in some detail in Article 10 of the Order. They cover such matters as physiology, including physical strength and stamina, considerations of decency or privacy, and jobs in single-sex establishments—for example, prisons, single-sex hospitals or parts of hospitals or special care establishments, and places where the character of the establishment requires a particular job to be held by a man or a woman. In many cases a job will not consist entirely of work which fulfils one or other of the genuine occupational qualifications stated but will contain some

duties to which one of the criteria applies. In such cases the genuine occupational qualification exception will normally apply to the whole job.
In addition to the genuine occupational qualification exceptions there are other exceptions. They include certain requirements of the police and prison services, employment for purposes of an organised religion, employment and training of midwives, single-sex establishments of education, education courses in physical training and charities. They also include insurance, communal accommodation and certain forms of discriminatory training designed to enable persons of either sex to fit themselves for certain types of work or for entry or re-entry to the labour market—for example, after a period of domesticity.
Elected bodies such as committees of trade unions may reserve a number of places for persons of one sex so as to maintain a reasonable balance between the sexes. Finally, acts of a discriminatory nature empowered by any enactment enacted before the making of the Order or empowered by any instrument made or approved before or after the making of the Order under any such enactment are excepted, as are discriminatory acts done for the purpose of safeguarding national or public security. Transitional provisions are designed to enable organisations and professional bodies to comply with the requirements of the Order within a given period of time.
The Order prohibits victimisation of any person in relation to any provision of the Order where that person has brought proceedings under the Order or, under the Equal Pay Act (Northern Ireland) 1970, has given evidence or information in connection with such proceedings or has taken any action whatsoever under either enactment provided that such action has been taken in good faith.
The Order establishes an Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland to work towards the elimination of discrimination, promote equality of opportunity between men and women generally, keep under review the working of the Order and the Equal Pay Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 and, if necessary, propose amendments to these enactments. I hope to appoint 12 commissioners, one


of whom will be chairman and another deputy-chairman.
Legal action under the Order lies, in employment cases, to industrial tribunals and in other cases to the county courts. Damages of up to £5,200 may be awarded against a respondent found guilty of discriminatory practices. Provision is made for appeals.
The Equal Opportunities Commission may, in specified circumstances, initiate proceedings in industrial tribunals and county courts. It may assist a person with the preparation and presentation of a case to an industrial tribunal or a county court where such case raises a matter of principle or is so complex that it would be unreasonable to expect that person to deal with the case unaided. It is also empowered to carry out formal investigations. In doing so, it may make recommendations for action to obviate discrimination. A report of its findings will be made available to the public. The Commission also has the power to issue non-discrimination notices requiring persons to desist from discriminatory practices and to furnish evidence to the Commission that he or they have done so.
In employment cases, a duty is laid on the Department of Manpower Services to attempt to promote a settlement through its industrial conciliation service. Provision is made for the Order to come into operation on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by Order appoint.
I am sure that the House will welcome the extension to women in Northern Ireland of the valuable protection provided by this legislation. I commend the Order to the House.

12.8 a.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I feel privileged on behalf of the Opposition to be able to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on his first speech from the Dispatch Box. I shall resist the temptation which he placed before me to rehearse the arguments on the Act which applies to Great Britain. The learned Gentleman told us how similar the two measures are, and one wonders why it was not found simpler and possible for the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to apply to Northern Ireland.
I know that there are differences between the two measures. Article 9 of the Order does not appear to be in the

Sex Discrimination Act 1975. What are the special circumstances of Northern Ireland which require this article, because it is not a reproduction of any part of the Great Britain Act? Have the Government had new thoughts since the Great Britain legislation? If so, will they share them? Or are they conducting some kind of experiment with Northern Ireland?
Another difference is that under one of the schedules to the Sex Discrimination Act an annual report has to be laid before Parliament. But there is no such requirement in the draft Order for that to be done in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman was spared the long sittings of the Standing Committee on the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill, in which there is also provision for an annual report—from the Fair Employment Agency—to include a general survey of developments during the period under report. Whey is an annual report called for in the Great Britain measure and not in the Northern Ireland measure?
These differences do not in themselves justify separate legislation for Northern Ireland. What the Government want to do could have been provided for in a single Act. Some public money would have been saved, and so would some time of public officers and the House. I wonder what is the additional cost to the taxpayer as a result of the legislative procedure preferred by the Government. I also wonder what will be the extra expense to industry in Northern Ireland at this time of economic stress.
What will be the effect on employment? Northern Ireland, where the textile industry has been so prominent, is a Province where there is a higher proportion of female labour than in Great Britain—44 per cent. compared with 40 per cent. High male unemployment in Northern Ireland has always been a distressing feature of social life there. It has been demoralising to the workless and disturbing to the peace. It has bred crime and violence. It is significant that the Government in Dublin have, I understand, decided not to proceed with legislation of this kind at this time of economic difficulty in the British Isles as a whole.
Are the Government satisfied that this measure will not bring more damage than advantage, particularly if it is brought


in now, or does the Secretary of State perhaps intend to delay its coming into operation, as he is empowered to do under Article 1(2)?

12.12 a.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: In the Twentieth Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the passage relating to this Order expresses grave concern about the continuation of the inadequate and, by general consent, unsatisfactory procedure for dealing with Northern Ireland legislation. On page 3 of the extract we read:
The Committee appreciate the argument for maintaining consistency in drafting practice and style during what was hoped to be a short-lived period of direct rule; but the longer direct rule lasts, the more inappropriate the former conventions become. The Committee are most concerned that the procedure applicable to Northern Ireland statutory instruments, and the scrutiny which they accordingly receive, should be so far out of line with those applicable to other instruments.
In a Written Answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), the Secretary of State listed 10 Acts of which eight had been applied to Northern Ireland without very substantial modification. I understand that the Secretary of State is considering to what degree Northern Ireland can be brought more fully into the general stream of Great Britain legislation or what would then perhaps be more accurately, properly and in full reality termed United Kingdom legislation. I hope that that assumption of mine is correct, because such a trend would certainly have our full support. It would quite clearly have the approval of the Select Committee and I see no reason why it should not be supported by all parties, since the inclusion of Northern Ireland in United Kingdom Bills would mean a considerable saving in the time of the House.
We have just passed the hour when supernatural happenings are reputed to occur. During the debate on Seychelles, we came close to fantasy several times. I should like to think that at this late hour we were retracing our steps to rather firmer ground. I fear, however, that we are going on to even greater nonsense. It may be harmless, but it is a nonsense. As we are part of the United Kingdom, however, we have to take the useless with the useful.
It may be claimed that the passage of the principal Act has already had an influence in Northern Ireland. If so, I have not seen any evidence of it. As far as I can ascertain, the balance of the sexes employed at the quarry near Crumlin has not altered since the Act was passed. Maybe that will have been put right by the time I return at the weekend.
I end by offering the congratulations of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself to the Minister on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. Hon. Members from Northern Ireland are the only elected representatives entitled to speak for the people of Northern Ireland. The Minister will find, as his colleagues have already found, that we are prepared to co-operate and act in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland at all times.

12.17 a.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall take only a few minutes in welcoming the Order and the application of the principal Act to Northern Ireland, with the means to greater equality and opportunity which it will hopefully provide.
I am a member of the Select Committee whose report is mentioned on the Order Paper, and we have had continuing difficulty with Statutory Instruments which apply to Northern Ireland. Our Twentieth Report drew the attention of the House to certain specific aspects, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take them into account.
As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, this is primary legislation. The question has already been asked why this Order is necessary and why the principal Act should not apply to Northern Ireland. This is primary legislation, subject only to this debate and not to the full procedure of Readings and Committee stages of principal Acts.
That is fairly straightforward, but complications arise with subordinate legislation arising out of this Statutory Instrument. Article 79 includes the words:
The Secretary of State may by an order the draft of which has been approved by the Assembly".
Article 80 states:
An order made by a Northern Ireland department under the preceding provisions of this Order".


Under the Northern Ireland Act 1974, where a Statutory Instrument made under primary legislation such as this is subject to the negative procedure or annulment by the Assembly, no parliamentary procedure at Westminster would be applicable. That is disturbing. One recognises that it is because of direct rule. Because we have no knowledge of how long direct rule will last, the Committee thought that procedures should be instituted whereby elected representatives should have some scrutiny over these subordinate items.
At present, with no Assembly and with that legislation not subject to Westminster scrutiny, Orders can be produced by the Executive without any democratic scrutiny. This is a grave concern of the Select Committee, as it says in its report. We had civil servants along for questioning. They said that they followed a procedure laid down in 1953. That is all very well and good, but it does not mean to say that it is very adequate, because it happened to be laid down not by Parliament, incidentally, but by the First Parliamentary Counsel to the Department in 1953.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) has already said that the Committee is concerned that the procedure for Northern Ireland subordinate legislation should be so much out of line with the subordinate legislation for this country.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would agree that, without any statutory change, it would be of assistance if the Select Committee on Northern Ireland was able at any rate to consider the reports upon Northern Ireland secondary legislation which are from time to time rendered to this House by the very able scrutineer, who does, in fact, read them. That would not meet the point entirely, but I hope the hon. Gentleman would agree that that would be some palliative and at least would enable points that applied to more than one Order to be put right for the future.

Mr. Cryer: I hesitate to go even partially along the road of slight agreement with the right hon. Gentleman, but his point is valid. At least the Select Committee would have some element of jurisdiction. Indeed, at the end of its report

the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments states:
The Committee consider that there is a good reason for a thorough review of the whole question of the procedures applicable to Northern Ireland delegated legislation during the period of direct rule.
I therefore recommend to the Minister that the Government should consider perhaps either an extension of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland or a separate Select Committee on Statutory Instruments from Northern Ireland to give this degree of scrutiny.
I conclude by welcoming the Order in general but asking the Minister to direct his attention to the matter I have mentioned. Tonight he may have to give me a very short reply saying that he will consider the matter. I hope that it will be considered, because in the present situation, with direct rule likely for some time yet, it is the duty of Parliament at Westminster to ensure that there is democratic scrutiny and that the powers inherent in this Order are not allowed to be continued unchecked, as has occurred in the past.

12.23 a.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his first speech from the Dispatch Box. By now he will have realised that responsibility in Northern Ireland is no mean undertaking and that on his first occasion at the Dispatch Box he is fortunate to be presenting an Order such as that before us now.
I can certainly relieve my hon. Friend's mind of any anxieties that he may have by quoting to him a resolution carried at my party's annual conference in Northern Ireland last year, in which it was said:
We would therefore give unqualified support to the introduction of legislation in Northern Ireland similar to the Sex Discrimination Bill at present before the British Parliament.
Therefore, I certainly welcome the Order. The Act which applies to Great Britain may have been overdue, but similar provisions have certainly been long overdue in Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend has said that women in Northern Ireland have been in a position much inferior in many respects to that of women in other parts of the United Kingdom where there have been


different social atmospheres and circumstances and where unemployment has not been the problem that it has been in Northern Ireland. Indeed, it would be appropriate to remind the House that the first women ever elected to this Parliament, with all its centuries of tradition, with the hundreds of years that it has behind it in seeking to bring into operation democratic principles, was an Irish woman, Countess Marcievitch. She was elected in the 1918 election in Ireland but she did not take her seat. Therefore her election seems to have gone unnoticed, and Lady Astor became recognised as the first woman to be elected to this House. In fact, it was an Irish woman who was first elected to sit in this Westminster Parliament.
Many Irish women, in contradistinction to what we have admitted, whilst being the underdogs in Irish life throughout the island, have by their activities stamped their authority on the pages of Irish history. I should like to place on record, in case some people may not be aware of it, that three women have been president of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, or the Trades Union Congress as it was then. I refer to Louise Bennett, Helena Maloney and Helen Chenevix.
Irish women, particularly since the Land League agitation in Ireland, have played an active part in the trade union movement. Because of that, they were more aware of the social conditions and social deprivation that were suffered by their sisters throughout the island of Ireland. Indeed, in Northern Ireland, that small six-county State that we have now, more than 50 per cent. of the population are women, and, therefore, in the absence of this legislation it could be taken that more than 50 per cent. of the population there could have been subjected to discrimination of some sort or another.
There are various forms of discrimination in Northern Ireland. My colleagues from Northern Ireland will know that we spent many hours in Committee discussing the fair employment legislation which I sincerely hope will become an Act as soon as this Order becomes operational in Northern Ireland. We have had discrimination on religious and political grounds. We have had discrimination on the ground of sex. If one takes the two

types of discrimination together, one sees that in certain parts of Northern Ireland it would have been difficult for a Catholic woman to have got a job in any circumstances.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) said that social and economic conditions in Northern Ireland are different from that they are in other parts of the United Kingdom. One can readily think of Derry, where the woman of the household is the breadwinner, and this situation has existed for many years. In a society such as one finds in Northern Ireland, where there has never been full employment, where many areas have suffered grave under-employment—again one can refer to specific geographic areas such as Strabane, Newry, Derry and certain parts of West Belfast—employers have taken advantage of the fact that the only type of work available suited women and have employed women rather than men, and at an unfair wage. With the deprivation that existed in Northern Ireland, women were forced to take such employment and they were paid extremely unfair wages.
One would like to see the creation of economic circumstances in Northern Ireland which would mean that jobs would be available for women at fair wages and, much more important, that there would be jobs for men, which would make it unnecessary for women to go to work if they did not wish to do so.
This Order will attempt to end discrimination against women in Northern Ireland. I think that we in Northern Ireland recognise more than most people in this House that legislation by itself cannot prevent discrimination. When the Order becomes law, it will not stop discrimination against women on the ground of sex. It will create an atmosphere which will make it more difficult for anyone to discriminate against women on the ground of sex, just as the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill, when it becomes an Act, will create an atmosphere to make it more difficult to discriminate on the ground of a person's religion. That is why the Order is welcome.
However, I find it hard to understand the line of reasoning of the hon. Member for Epping Forest. In his opening remarks, he seemed to welcome the Order, but as he went along he put in some


qualifications and asked the Government whether this was the right time to introduce the Order. That seemed to be completely contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said only a few minutes before, that when the legislation became law in Great Britain it should become law in Northern Ireland and that extra expense was created because this was not done. The hon. Member cannot have it both ways. If he believes that the law as it applies to Great Britain should have been implemented in Northern Ireland at the same time, he cannot ask the Government whether this is the right time to introduce the Order.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Government of the Irish Republic were not at this moment seeking to introduce such legislation. I say as an Irishman that, whatever the Government of the Irish Republic do, I think that this is an opportune moment to introduce this legislation in Northern Ireland. It is also an opportune moment for the Government of the Republic to bring in like legislation. I would hope that my colleagues in the Labour movement in Ireland and the Irish Labour Party will use whatever influence they have to ensure that legislation such as this is introduced in the Republic of Ireland.
This legislation will be welcomed in Northern Ireland. I hope that it will not meet the same opposition as has been (Northern Ireland) Bill. I believe that the voiced against the Fair Employment Order, while it may not end discrimination, will certainly create the atmosphere which will do away with many of the injustices suffered by far too many Irish women in the six counties of Northern Ireland.

12.32 a.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I welcome this Order. If I have any criticism to make it is only to criticise the Government for taking so long in producing it.
I am not one of those who support the argument that matters affecting Northern Ireland should be incorporated automatically in an Act of Parliament applying to the whole of Great Britain. I reject that because it is turning one's back completely on the restoration of the Stormont Parliament one day—soon, I

hope. Those who argue that all legislation affecting Northern Ireland should be incorporated in Acts apply to Great Britain rejecting the restoration of a local Parliament.
This Order will be welcomed in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that the remark of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), who described it as "nonsense", or the remark of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) who has said it was "rubbish", reflect the opinion of the people of Northern Ireland. They are an enlightened people, despite seven years of terror, and they will not believe that their public representatives are truly representing them if they turn their backs on this Order.
It is incredible that only now, in 1976, are we considering making women equal with men before the law. It is almost 60 years since women were given the vote. When the Representation of the People Act was before this House in 1918, many believed that the country was on the road to ruin. We hear similar voices in the Chamber tonight. They did not relish the prospect of giving the vote to women in those earlier days and it seems that times have not changed the opinion of some hon. Members.
Whenever human rights are debated, the outraged and the righteous combine to prophesy social ruin for the country. It is only 100 years ago that a husband as of right sequestered all the worldly goods of his wife: the wife suffered the same punishment in matrimony with regard to her income and personal belongings as a person guilty of high treason. The most terrible indignities were inflicted upon women because of the state of the law and because of their inability to claim the protection that the law willingly gave to their husbands and brothers.
If the law today goes most of the way—although not all the way—towards recognising equality of partnership in marriage and gives married women and single women equal rights with men when it comes to jobs, this is due more to the dedication of many women in the struggle for equal rights than to any extravagant generosity on the part of men. I am not aware of one history of Ireland which includes the word "feminist" in its index.


There are references to "Fermoy" to "Ferns, Bishop of" and to "Fenian", but none to "feminist". But both parts of Ireland have produced remarkable women and perhaps would produce many more but for the low esteem in which they were held before the law.
Nowadays, women play a leading part in church organisations, charities like Combat Cancer and movements like the League Against Cruel Sports. In my constituency women have been the inspirers of community effort in the soul-destroying anonymity of the vast housing estates, designed largely by men and usually without the community and youth centres which are so vital to the wellbeing of young and old. We should pay tribute to their work.
The purpose of the Order is to get rid of discrimination. It seems to go some way towards achieving the ending of discrimination in employment. With increasing unemployment and the cut in public spending, women will be enabled for the first time ever to ensure that they do not suffer twice over from their sex and from a legal inability to pursue the object of social security on an equal footing with men.
If I have one other criticism to make, it is that the Government should have changed the name of the Department responsible for the Order—the Department of Manpower Services.

12.38 a.m.

Mr. McCusker: The last comment of the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) was typical of the nonsense which attaches to debates on legislation of this sort. Both the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) in one breath talked about the second-class nature and down-trodden lives of Irish women and in the next admitted their worth and the part they have played throughout Irish history. It is a sad underestimate of Irish women down the generations to suggest that they have been anything other than extremely powerful and influential figures in the life of Ireland.
Legislation like this will not help them to improve that position. I demonstrated my opinion of it last year when I voted against Second Reading of the Sex Discrimination Bill. As I sat in Com

mittee on the Bill and heard childbearing described as "a temporary disability" and child-rearing as "an inconvenient social function", I felt that my view was completely justified.
Whether the hon. Member for Down, North knows it or not, women are different. I believe that they have a perfectly natural function to perform, and that is primarily as mothers and wives, and legislation such as this and aspects of the Employment Protection Act which bribe and induce young mothers to leave their babes in arms and to return to work undermines motherhood, the essential relationship of motherhood and the family.
We tend to pay lip service to the values of family and motherhood and then set about undermining those foundations of our State. Consequently, we have delinquency, teenage murders on the streets of our capital city, broken homes and an accelerating divorce rate. If women were performing the function of motherhood and providing an anchor in the home and family, as they did in the past, perhaps we should not have those problems.
But I do not want to rehearse all those arguments. I have advanced them in the past and I have not changed from them.

Mr. Kilfedder: Stupid.

Mr. McCusker: If the hon. Member for Down, North would sample family life, he might be better equipped to comment on these issues.

Mr. Kilfedder: I trust that after this stupid speech the women of Armagh will not vote for the hon. Gentleman at the next election.

Mr. McCusker: What interests me about the Order is that it sets up what will be known as an Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland which will have a membership of between six and 12, plus associated staff. We already have in Northern Ireland a Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, with a membership of about eight, with a staff. We are shortly to have a Fair Employment Agency which will have a membership of between five and 11, with a staff. When we approve, as no doubt we shall, the Industrial Relations Order we shall have a Labour Relations Agency for Northern Ireland which will have a membership of 10, plus a staff.
This goes some way to countering the allegation made to the Minister responsible for manpower services that he is always reducing employment prospects in Northern Ireland. In this respect, we are improving them. Taking into account the membership of all these commissions and agencies, together with the secretariats, advisers and research workers associated with them we shall have quite a substantial involvement in these matters.
The First Report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights went some way to supporting my original comments. In paragraph 52 on page 16 it states:
It may be argued that legislation on sex discrimination would have little relevance in Northern Ireland because the majority of women do not feel they are treated unfairly. It appears that now, and probably for years to come, many married women will be satisfied with a role that is mainly domestic and, to a large extent, dependent. Indeed many women in Northern Ireland may feel this is the appropriate role.
It might have been better to have said that this was the "natural" role.
The Commission goes on to say:
A further objection to legislation of the kind now proposed is that there would be substantial social costs if women sought and achieved equality of opportunity in employment. It is said that if this were to happen on a large scale the nature and quality of family life and of the upbringing of children would change for the worse. We recognise that this is an extremely important and complex subject".
Therefore, it did not rule out my arguments in the cavalier fashion adopted by the hon. Member for Down, North. It took into account the fact that the legislation which we are enacting for Northern Ireland will create a strange situation in which we shall be faced with a complexity of commissions and agencies.
In paragraph 55 on page 18 of its Report the commission states:
For the reasons set out above we have advised you that we recommend the introduction of a Sex Discrimination Bill in Northern Ireland on the same lines as the measure for Great Britain. We have, however, some reservations about the form an Equal Opportunities Commission to supervise the legislation in Northern Ireland should take".
It goes on in paragraph 56 to say that to call
for the creation of a new agency, in Northern Ireland this may only add to the plethora of agencies already in being, some of which do not exist in Great Britain. This may be

counter-productive and uneconomic. We hope therefore that the extension of comparable legislation in Great Britain to Northern Ireland would allow, where possible, for the administrative co-ordination of the operation of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Fair Employment Agency.
In other words, the commission that we are establishing tonight could be linked with the Fair Employment Agency—indeed, they could be one and the same—and there is no reason why we could not also include the Labour Relations Agency, and I do not see why we should not also include the Standing Advisory Commission.
These bodies have features in common—they have statutory trade union and employer representation, at least one lawyer, their share of do-gooders, and the statutory woman. If we are to have these agencies and commissions, the Minister should carefully consider whether a community with a total population of 1½ million needs this sort of supervision to implement legislation of the type that we have been discussing.

12.46 a.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross: It has been noticeable this evening that a number of those who have spoken have welcomed the legislation with open arms, and I was happy to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) strike a slightly discordant note, and I have much pleasure in following him down that path. Indeed, any Ulsterman who listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) this evening could only have accused him of practising the most blantant vote-catching blarney on womanhood. No doubt the same Ulsterman would equally have accused the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) who, unfortunately, has left us, of talking nothing more nor less than blethers.

Mr. Kilfedder: Does my hon. Friend wish to retain the legal disabilities that women in Northern Ireland suffer?

Mr. Ross: No, and we have not said that, and if my hon. Friend had been listening, he would have realised that.
The plain truth of the matter is that this legislation is simply a nonsense, nothing more nor less, and it can be nothing more than a nonsense because it tries to change the natural position of men and women and to bring about some


strange neuter unisex being which cannot exist.
I should like to do a little nitpicking with the Order. Article 3 says that a person discriminates against woman if he
applies to her a requirement or condition which he applies or would apply equally to man but—
which is such that the proportion of women who can comply with it is considerably smaller than the proportion of men who can comply with it, and …
which is to her detriment because she cannot comply with it.
In Article 4 similar restrictions are applied to a man.
What happens if an employer wants to hire half-a-dozen Irish navvies to dig a trench? A girl of 4ft 10in would not be of much use to him. And a navvy who was 6ft 4in and weighed 17 or 18 stone would look rather out of place on a secretary's chair in the Minister's office. This proposal is ridiculous and people know it is.
This is trying to apply a proposal that cannot be applied and made to work in reality. It is simply creating a situation in which there will be endless possibilities for litigation—which will keep all the lawyers happy—to the general detriment of the country as a whole.
In Article 20 we read that prison officers are not to be discriminated against on grounds of height or physical disability. In an earlier article there is the same provision regarding policemen and policewomen. Article 10(2)(a) contains the strange words-—
for reasons of physiology (excluding physical strength or stamina)".
I went to the Library and looked up "physiology" in the dictionary. I learned that "physiology" meant the normal functions and phenomena attached to the person or creature in question. Surely one of the normal functions of a man is to be physically stronger than a woman, to have greater stamina than a woman. In the very next line that is specifically excluded, which does not seem to be very sensible.
Article 14(1)(d) provides that a woman shall have equal benefits. In Article 19(2)(c) we read that for police pension purposes a woman can be treated differently. There was a young police

woman in Londonderry last night who was not treated any differently by the IRA because she was a woman. I do not think that any of us want our women, in Ireland or anywhere else, to achieve equality by means of a bullet through the face. We think a lot of our women. Most of us have found a woman to love and to marry. We do not want to see them suffer under any disability. Neither do we want to see them confronted and confounded with nonsense.
Article 82(1)(a) provides that the Order applies to the Crown. This means that if the Crown treats women and men differently, the Crown is guilty. Inevitably that applies to Ministers as well. On 8th March of this year I tabled this Question for Written Answer to the Secretary of State for Social Services:
what would be the total amount of pension payable during their lives to (a) a single woman, (b) a single man, and (c) a married couple, at present rates, if, in each case, they retired at the normal ages and died at the average ages for each sex.
This is where most of us would be glad to become a woman—at age 60. The answer was:
A single woman will, on average, receive £14,230 in pension, a single man, £8,470".[Official Report, 8th March 1976; Vol. 907, c. 106.]
I hope that the Under-Secretary will impress upon his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government the vital necessity of the Government bringing pensions for men and women into line as soon as possible so that men receive over their pension life on average the same amount as women.
Article 21 states that the Order does not apply to organised religion if it is against the doctrine of that religion. If it is against the doctrine, why not have freedom of conscience as well? As the doctrines of all religions and churches and denominations have been known to change, perhaps the Minister will tell us whether this is to be a one-way street. If 10 years ago a church decided that the teaching of St. Paul in regard to a woman keeping silent was the rock upon which its precepts should be accepted and now accepts women as preachers, and if the church were to change that doctrine again in the future to the former position, would the church be discriminating against women by making that change? This is yet another example


of the way in which this legislation can be brought into disrepute.
Article 34(1)(a) and Article 79(1) refer to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I suppose that this reference is included because the 1973 Act is still on the statute book. I hope that it is not an attempt by the Government to resurrect the dead. That Assembly is past and gone and cannot be brought back to life. It seems rather silly to include it in this Order.
Article 34(2) has special provision for women in political parties in certain conditions. If a woman wishes to join the Orange Institution or the Black Institution, which are responsible bodies, does she have to be admitted even if the rules of the organisation are against it? If she wishes to join the Freemasons, does she have to be admitted? Are these organisations to find themselves outside the law because they are "men only" systems?
On a more serious point, I want to mention charities, under Article 78(1)(a) and (b), which appears to apply only to property. Does "property" include money? A large number of small bequests have been made for the education of the poor, for example. Some are perhaps 100 years old, and some have been left for the education of children of a particular sex. There are such bequests in my diocese. Is the law to compel these bodies to make their money available for both sexes?
Finally, what is the position of educational charities that have their headquarters in Dublin, as many Irish charities do? In some of these cases, the money is administered from Dublin, which is also where the education of the children concerned sometimes takes place.

12.47 a.m.

Mr. John Dunlop: I wish to ask the Minister about a problem which has been raised by the application of the Act in the Post Office telecommunications department in Northern Ireland. I have received a complaint from a couple of men about the situation.
There are many small telephone exchanges in Northern Ireland. There are instances where a man and a woman have been locked up together at night in a small exchange, with no supervision because the supervisor generally goes off

duty at 11.30 p.m. Most of these small exchanges are locked up at night because of the security situation.
Should there not be some special provision for such circumstances? Whilst I do not want to introduce a carping note, a situation where a man and a woman are locked up at night in one of these exchanges could bring about home problems, especially where there already may be some uncertainty, with perhaps an unsettled marriage. Such things can cause trouble.
I have communicated the problem to both the head postmaster in Belfast and the head of the telephone department. They have not yet replied or given an indication of a solution. Perhaps something could be done.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Carter: I thank those hon. Members who welcomed me to the position I now have. I hope I can do some good in it. In my first few weeks in Northern Ireland, wherever I have been I have been welcomed by everybody. In spite of the problems, Northern Ireland in my experience is an extremely friendly place. Whether in Belfast, Armagh or Derry—or Londonderry, whichever hon. Members prefer—I have been welcomed in schools and other institutions. I know that I shall enjoy my time in the Province.
Very early in this short debate I wrote down that all speakers were pleased with and supported the measure. I have had a quick reminder this evening that in matters involving Northern Irish affairs we can never rush to conclusions as early as that. But I think it would be true to say that the general tenor of the debate is in favour of the Order.
A number of points were made concerning the way in which Northern Irish legislation is dealt with. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) mentioned the question of delegation to which the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has drawn the attention of the House in its report on this Order.
As my right hon. Friend has made clear, he is currently reviewing the nature of continued direct rule and will in due course bring forward proposals for its


renewal, including any changes which may be desirable. Nevertheless, the current procedures for handling Northern Ireland delegated legislation are fully in accordance with the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1974, which Parliament debated at some length and to which it gave its approval.
Moreover, while it is true that under the terms of the Act many Northern Ireland subordinate instruments are not subject to any procedure at Westminster, they are nevertheless subject to scrutiny by the Northern Ireland Examiner of Statutory Rules, whose terms of reference are closely based on those of the Joint Committee. The examiner's reports are made at regular intervals and copies are placed in the Library, as are copies of the instruments themselves, or as soon as possible after they are published.
I ought, I think, to leave it at that. It is something of a minefield. Clearly, the Secretary of State understands the anxiety, and I have no doubt that in the not too distant future his views will be made known.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest mentioned a number of matters and I shall try to deal with each of them. The first concerned the effect on male employment. It is not expected to be marked, but once again we ought to emphasise that the essential point is to provide for equality of opportunity.
Secondly, he mentioned the cost of the Equal Opportunities Commission. It is expected to be in the region of £83,000 per annum. The cost to industry generally and to commerce is unquantifiable, and to some extent it will depend on the extent to which the people of Northern Ireland seek to apply the terms of the Order.
The hon. Member went on to ask about the date of enactment. It is scheduled for summer enactment and it is hoped that the Equal Opportunities Commission will be operative in the autumn.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest asked why Article 9 was necessary in this Order and not in the Great Britain Order. The reason is that in Great Britain appointments are the direct function of, for example, education authorities. In Northern Ireland, the statutory bodies are given recommendations by another tier

of elected body—for example, school committees—and it is these that we must ensure do not discriminate. That is why we have Article 9.
Then the hon. Gentleman asked why a report was required. Apparently, it is the normal practice for statutory bodies to give to Parliament reports of their activities.
As a general point, the hon. Gentleman asked why we were doing this in Northern Ireland when the Republic was not taking parallel steps. As one of my hon. Friends pointed out, that is a problem for the Government of the Republic. It is not a matter for us. We are dealing with Northern Ireland legislation. We only hope that what we do here will spur that Government on to take similar action in the Republic.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I was not suggesting that we should follow the Irish Republic. I was merely suggesting that it was significant that they were having regard to economic conditions in the timing of the bringing in of legislation of this kind.

Mr. Carter: That again is a matter for them. We cannot interfere with them, and we do not take our standards from them. We would argue that, on this issue, we are somewhat in advance of them, even though some Opposition Members have expressed doubts on that score.
The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) criticised the establishment of another statutory body. I should point out to him that there are provisions in this Order for the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Fair Employment Agency to use a common staff. That should have some effect on costs.
In a rather lengthy speech, the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) raised a number of matters. He said that the Order was complex and that it was unlikely to have much influence, basically because it was complex. The important fact to bear in mind in matters of this kind is that, although no one can guarantee that every woman in Northern Ireland will take up the provisions of this Order, they will have an influence for good generally and they will spur people towards a recognition of the fact that, from 1976 onwards, the rights of women


are equal to those of men in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman wanted to know whether money was property. I am reliably informed that it is.
As for the point raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) about mixed staff being on duty at night, if the job needs to be held by a man to preserve decency or privacy, under Article 10(2)(b) it is not discriminatory to employ a man. But if decency is not involved, it must be a management matter to ensure that the staff are content.
I trust that the House will now accept the Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved.

Orders of the Day — NEW TOWNS (BORROWING LIMITS)

1.10 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): I beg to move,
That the New Towns (Limit on Borrowing) Order 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved.
As hon. Members will know, it is necessary to ask the House from time to time for authority to increase the total borrowing limits for the new town development corporations and for the Commission for the New Towns. Until now this has always been done by the introduction of a New Towns Money Bill, but tonight we have before us an Order under the 1975 New Towns Act. That Act raised the limit of borrowing from £1,500 million to £1,750 million, with a provision for a further increase of £500 million by Order. The present Order laid before the House will enable that increase of the borrowing limit by £500 million, bringing it to £2,250 million, to come into force seven days after the Order is made.
We propose to make the whole of the permitted £500 million increase in this one Order. Detailed and precise forecasting of spending in new towns is difficult, but if recent levels of new town borrowing

continue the whole of the additional £500 million could be used up before the end of 1977 and a further Money Bill would then be required. With a level of expenditure of, on average, about £25 million a month, I hope the House will agree that it would be sensible not to take two or more bites at the £500 million cherry which the 1975 Act provided.
I am conscious that my remarks so far, with their references to very substantial sums of money, will rightly lead to questions in hon. Members' minds about whether our new town programme offers value for money and whether new town corporations are cost-effective agencies. How do we assess the value of new towns? Much depends on the price we put on human happiness, and I—and, I think, most hon. Members—would rate that very highly. New towns offer homes in an improved environment for people who have been living in cities in overcrowded conditions. They provide industry so that these people may live and work in the same locality. The standard of design and landscaping at their best, in these towns, has set an example to authorities everywhere as well as having done much to improve the quality of life for the inhabitants of new towns.
Of course, all this is very much in the realm of social costs and benefits which are notoriously difficult to quantify. But even looking with the strict eye of an accountant we can see that new towns eventually break even financially and even come into surplus. In 1974–75, for example, the Commission for the New Towns made a gross profit of nearly £5·3 million, Harlow Development Corporation a profit of £2·4 million and Stevenage £2·7 million. These surpluses have under the existing arrangements reverted to the Exchequer as the source of by far the largest proportion of all investment in the new towns. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Local Government made clear, however, during the Second Reading of the New Towns (Amendment) Bill, our aim for the future will be that all concerned with the development of the new towns programme—the new towns as a whole, the public in general through the Exchequer, and the local community in each new town—should enjoy an appropriate share of the benefits created by public investment in the new towns.
The Second Reading of the New Towns (Amendment) Bill recently afforded an opportunity for a very full and wide-ranging debate on new town affairs. From it arose a genuine belief in the valuable contribution which the new town movement has made since 1946 to national development.
But what of the future? Mr. right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland recently announced that it was not intended to proceed with the development of Stonehouse New Town in order to give greater priority to urban renewal. In the light of that decision, hon. Members may have doubts whether the rest of the new towns programme will go ahead. Let me allay any such doubts. The present new towns programme is complementary to the improvement of the inner cities rather than competitive. Even if the birth rate continues to fall, it will not reduce housing demand for another 10 to 15 years.
Up until the end of the 1980s the new towns programme will be fulfilling the needs of people already born, who on present trends will be forming more households and of a smaller size than we would have planned for 10 or 20 years ago. To the extent that the need for rented housing exceeds supply in the conurbations, the new towns which serve them will still be an important factor in dealing with the continuing outflow of people from them. In particular, new towns will provide the avenue for those who wish to move out who must look to the public rented sector for housing. If the new towns were stopped, the outward movement from the conurbations would be largely restricted to people who can buy houses, and I believe that this is liable to be socially divisive.
Of course, the new towns programme is closely monitored and reviewed as part of the process of regional and structure planning, and in some cases a review may indicate the need either for "trimming" or for expansion of the programme of a particular town. The cases for the expansion of the programme of a particular town. The cases for the expansion of Harlow and Stevenage are currently being considered, while last year my right hon. Friend announced the postponement of Telford's ultimate targets and a reduced interim target to reflect what could

reasonably be achieved up to 1986. I can assure the House that the new towns programme is not, therefore, in any way insensitive to changing demands and priorities. Moreover the money made available by Parliament continues to represent an excellent social and financial investment. I commend the Order to the House.

1.16 a.m

Mr. Michael Morris: I am grateful to the Minister for spending a few minutes explaining the Order. Just over a year ago, on 12th May, the Government sought an increase in borrowing from £1,500 million to £2,250 million. They were seeking an immediate increase of £250 million and it was anticipated that the remainder would be brought forward in instalments in 1976–77.
It appears that the necessity for the second instalment has come sooner than expected, at the front end of the financial year. I am still not too happy about why we have to move away from the £250 million tranches to £500 million—a substantial amount of money. Will the Minister please comment on whether the £250 million has gone according to plan? As the Minister must know, there are rumours that housing expenditure is unrestricted while other local expenditure, called OLE, is restricted. Will the Minister confirm or deny those rumours?
There are distinct signs that industry is slowing down in its movement to new towns and that its capital drawings are therefore slower than originally anticipated. We all know that the Government's public sector borrowing requirement is excessive and that it is causing the economy in general, and sterling in particular, great problems. Can the Minister say whether the £500 million which is being sought was included in the latest forecast by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget.
The last time we discussed the method of borrowing, the point was made that the financial effectiveness of the new towns was restrained by the Government's requirement that they must borrow over 60 years at fixed interest of 14 per cent. to 15 per cent., instead of playing the market. Officials within the development corporations are urgently asking the Government why the new towns must


be restricted from short-term borrowing and playing the market. They make the valid point that the new towns are subsidising the Treasury in the sense that they must borrow short and not long-term, therefore making the operation considerably more expensive than it need be.
There is also the question of financial strategy. We know that reserves are limited. Both sides of the House accept the wholehearted commitment to the new towns concept. We see the role of new town corporations as agents moving into a situation, either in a green field site or adjacent to an industrial area, doing a job and then moving on. It is in that context that we have supported the transfer of housing assets and pushed for the sale of houses in the new towns.
I hope that we shall not be locked into the five-year prior residence requirement, which would effectively rule out all the second-generation new towns, where very few residents have been for five years. We on this side of the House accept the requirement for some residential term, but two to three years would be more appropriate. It would get over the problem of those who sought to take advantage of the market but would at the same time give some residual residence requirement.
I shall be grateful if the Minister will confirm what happens to the revenue from sales. Does it, as he said, go straight back to the Treasury or, as his right hon. Friend indicated in the debate on 12th May last year, does it go back to the credit of the New Towns Commission?
If we all see a continuing rôle for the new towns, as I think we do, and if some of us on both sides of the House see a rôle for the new towns concept in revitalising inner urban areas, we must think very hard about how we shall finance this sort of redevelopment of the inner urban areas. One has in mind particularly the dockland area. The Minister is nearer to that than I am.
There is an alternative to our remaining entirely dependent on the Treasury. In the older new towns there are considerable assets which are distinctly undervalued. The time has probably come when the Government should look again at the matter and consider whether

they should be refinancing or selling off those assets to the financial institutions. I underline the words "refinancing or selling off". I am not necessarily saying that both must be done. In that way the community would benefit by realising its investment and redeploying its assets to the benefit of another community elsewhere where there is a job still to be done.
The hon. Gentleman has calmly moved a motion relating to a sum of £500 million, which by any yardstick is a massive figure. It is not just the sheer scale that is worrying. The evidence is that we are not receiving the return that we should. That is in no way to criticise the relative effectiveness of the new towns.
Perhaps we should look quickly again at the minutes of the evidence and appendices to the Expenditure Committee's Environment and Home Office Sub-Committee in the 1974 Session. Page 641 highlights some of the financial controls mentioned in the McKinsey evidence to that Committee. It describes the annual report as statutory and on the whole fairly non-controversial, and it mentions the management accounting system, which communicates the financial plans. But it goes on in paragraph 143, probably the most important paragraph of all the evidence from a financial point of view, to say:
However, the full potential of the system for providing a means to evaluate and improve the performance of new towns is not being achieved. In part this is for reasons internal to the system. The Accounts do not, for example, allow easy comparisons to be made between forecast and actual results, or between current expectations and previous forecasts. Nor do they develop the key ratios and other performance measures that would identify for the new towns the areas of potential performance improvement worth detailed review.
It says that it is in the use of the accounts that the greatest unrealised potential lies, in monitoring performance, analysing and challenging the plans and providing the new towns with a discipline and stimulus.
All is not entirely well in the financial area. Even at this late hour, when the number of hon. Members in the Chamber is small, we ought to reflect that we tend to react too easily to just social causes and produce a myriad of legislation which is totally uncosted.
The new towns concept has proved its value. We know they work and are generally cost effective—probably more cost effective than local government, in which many of us have served. But we do not know how cost effective they are, whether they could do better or whether some are doing better than others. The Minister's consultation document is devoid of any comment on the economic returns of new towns, and there is a lack of any meaningful financial data.
New towns have made an enormous impact on the financial situation of the local authorities in whose areas they lie. Counties like Northamptonshire find themselves caught between a rate support grant which does not anticipate the problems caused by the new towns, pressure from the Department of the Environment to build and the general meanness of the Treasury to pick up the tab.
I have raised a number of important points, though I do not expect the Minister to answer them all tonight. The time has come when Parliament has to ask his Department to substantiate the financial return which the community is getting from new towns. By any yardstick, £500 million is a very large slice of public money and it is right that the House should look seriously at the return we are getting from this investment.

1.27 a.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) has raised a number of interesting and useful points, and I thank him for the way in which he has tackled this subject. I owe him an answer first for the fact that we are asking the House for £500 million at one go rather than, as he and other hon. Members may have expected, in two lots of £250 million.
There is no reason of substance why we could not have had two bites at the cherry, but the hon. Member will appreciate that one of the consequences of inflation has been rising costs and we felt it right to ask for this sum in one go because costs have risen considerably since the Bill became an Act. It might also have been difficult and inconvenient to have attempted to go for two lots of £250 million.
The hon. Member has placed me in some difficulty by raising the question of

the report of the Select Committee. It was a useful report and the Government are giving its recommendations careful consideration. We expect to publish a response in the form of a White Paper before the Summer Recess. It would not be right for me to comment on the quotations referred to by the hon. Member. I accept the relevance of the point he was making, but it would be wrong for me to comment on it.
The hon. Gentleman raised an interesting point about the reasons that might lie behind the policy that the Government have adopted whereby the new town corporations are dependent upon the Treasury for borrowing money rather than being able to raise it themselves. I am advised that, certainly in the long term, the likelihood is that we would probably obtain the money at a more favourable rate than might be the case if new town corporations were to attempt to raise money on the private market and that, in general, money that comes from the Treasury is probably at a more favourable rate than might otherwise be the case.
The hon. Gentleman asked what was the present state of the game in terms of the expenditure of money to date. Since the passing of the Act. I think I can give the figures he seeks. On 20th May the net amount outstanding was roughly £1,745 million. No further borrowing is expected before the end of this month. I can also give the hon. Gentleman the estimate of the maximum likely spending during 1976–77, which according to our estimates will amount to about £350 million. I ought also to advise the House that the earliest likely date that a new Money Bill will need to be presented will be about the autumn of 1977. That is the present position concerning outstanding debt and likely spending in the future.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the general support he has given to the new towns programe in general. I accept very much what he says. He and I both recognise that there is something of a difference between the Government side of the House and his side about the question of the sale of new town houses. Admittedly that is a possible source of income for the new town corporations, and I ought perhaps to say at this stage that, as I understand it, the


money that comes from the sale of houses in the ownership of the corporations would revert to the corporations but that the profit made by the corporations would revert to the Treasury.
On the other hand, although as a consequence of discussions that will take place between my right hon. Friend and chairmen of new town corporations there may be in certain new towns, and according to criteria of which the hon. Gentleman well knows, sales of corporation houses, the Government are not at all certain exactly what kind of income will arise as a consequence of this. There are a number of reasons, which I shall not go into now, which suggest that the number of sales will not be so great as to make a significant difference to the finances of new town corporations.
I hope that I have answered most, if not all, of the hon. Gentleman's points. If he has a specific point remaining, perhaps he will remind me of it.

Mr. Michael Morris: There was the rather important question of whether the public sector borrowing requirement, as stated by the Chancellor in his Budget, anticipated this quickening of the capital expenditure. Was the £500 million included in the forecast that the Chancellor gave only a few weeks ago?

Mr. Barnett: I am almost certain that it was, but I do not want to say so categorically. Perhaps I may let the hon. Gentleman know by letter as soon as possible.

1.35 a.m.

Mr. George Rodgers: I appreciate that it is desperately late, and I want to say only a couple of sentences. In fact the Minister has anticipated most of my questions, and I am content with that.
I appreciate particularly that there is to be a flexible attitude towards new towns in the matter of the balance of housing and industry. It is important that we should maintain a balance and be prepared to adjust our position in the light of industry that is attracted to an area in proportion to the houses avail

able. It is true that all new town developments have been successful. They have attracted industry, provided housing and generated prosperity.
In my area there is the Central Lancashire New Town of Chorley. At this stage of the development there are bound to be irritations. Despite the fact that the local authority and the public welcome the development of the new town, there are problems that emerge when a project is getting off the ground. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would say whether it will be possible for him to visit the area in the comparatively near future and discuss the problems that have arisen with myself, the new town development corporation, residents and local authorities generally.

Mr. Guy Barnett: It is very much my intention to visit a number of new towns in the near future and try to see for myself the problems on the ground. I think my hon. Friend will be glad to know that it is my intention to visit the Central Lancashire New Town on 18th June. I hope very much to see some of the problems to which my hon. Friend referred because I am convinced, as I think he is, of the necessity of maintaining a balance between homes and jobs in the new towns. That is one matter to which I shall want to pay particular attention when I visit the area, as I hope to do on the date I have mentioned.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the New Towns (Limit on Borrowing) Order 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (MEMBERSHIP)

Ordered,
That Mr. Guy Barnett be discharged from Membership of the European Parliament and that Mr. William Molloy be designated a member of the European Parliament.

Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Bates.]

Orders of the Day — SCHOOL TRANSPORT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

1.37 a.m.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I am grateful for the opportunity, even at 1.40 in the morning, of raising a burning issue in the Burton division, as I know it is in nearly every constituency in Britain today—the problem of school transport.
The trouble is that it was a burning issue four years ago when my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who was then Secretary of State for Education and Science—and a mighty good one at that—set up a working party to consider the problem. It was still a burning issue when the working party reported two and a half years ago, and nothing has come of it. I shall not say it has got buried: rather has it been kicked around, up and down, backwards and forwards. It is burning still, brighter than ever and it will probably explode in the hands of the Secretary of State who, as sure as God made little children, will be left holding the problem when it blows up if he does not do something soon.
If the problem was burning four years ago and one thinks of what has happened in the four years that have passed, one sees how the problem has been aggravated. With the oil crisis, inflation all but doubling costs, cars beyond the reach of many more families, bus companies giving up country routes, and with 70 per cent. labour operating costs, fares have had to be raised violently as Government subsidies have become more and more restricted. Add to this the educational reorganisation that has meant children travelling greater distances to new all-purpose comprehensive schools. and the seriousness of the problem and the urgency of a solution becomes apparent.
Three fine villages just outside Burton-on-Trent in my constituency provide me with what I think is a typical example of the problem that exists now all over the country. The villages are Tutbury, famous for its castle. Mary Queen of Scots and Tutbury glass, Stretton, which is also famous, both of which send their secondary schoolchildren to the Forest of Needwood School at Rolleston-on-Dove.
About the problems of these schoolchildren, parents, local authorities and bus operators have been in endless correspondence. There have been private and public meetings. I visited the Secretary of State 10 months ago, and much good it did me. He visited the Labour Party in my constituency. No good did it do it or him. No good has it done anyone. The problems remain and grow in seriousness.
What are they? First, there is the unfairness of the three-mile limit. Why should parents, sometimes taking their children to the very same bus stops, get totally free or totally paid bus fares for their children depending upon whether they lie just inside or just outside the three-mile boundary? Secondly, while children between 14 and 16 years of age have to pay full fare all the time, children up to 14 pay half fare but only after 9.30 a.m. Since schools start at 9 a.m. concessionary fares are nothing but encouragement for the poorer-off families to miss the early morning assembly and part of the first class. What on earth is the educational sense of such an absurd situation? Are we really so incapable of devising a more sensible use of our transport resources?
The Headmaster of the Forest of Need-wood School, Mr. Wraight, has provided me with a breakdown of the situation as it affected his pupils coming from Tutbury and Stretton on Tuesday last, 18th May. I have handed a copy of this document to the Minister. There are 151 children on the roll from Tutbury. Fifty go by bus to school in the morning—10 travel on the 8.24 a.m. and 40 travel on the 9.24 and are late for school. Why? Because the full fare from Tutbury Castle Inn to the school is 23p single, 34½p for a day return, because half fare is charged before 4.20 p.m. on the return journey. This is £1·72½p a week for a parent. If a parent has four children, it amounts to a cost of £6·90p a week. This is a rather extravagant price to have to pay for State education.
A further apparent absurdity, certainly an unfairness, is that if one goes to Burton, a journey which is four miles further on, the fare is the same—23p by the State bus—the Motor Traction Company—and 15p by the private enterprise bus run by Stevensons. Why is there this discrepancy in the fares? The parents


ask why nothing is being done about it. The answer is that the Government will not actually do anything about it.
There are 280 children on the roll at Stretton. Eighteen go by bus to school in the morning, six pay the full fare and get there on time and 12 pay half fare and get there late. Why? The Stretton full bus fare is 19p from one point and 14p from another, which costs a parent £1·37p or £1·05p a week per child.
These examples raise the third problem, that of safety. About 100 children out of the 280 from Stretton walk or cycle to school. But the road is potentially dangerous, particularly on dark mornings and evenings. The footpath changes from one side of the road to the other. There is a dangerous bend. There are no street lights for some of the way and there were no warning lights, pedestrian crossing or crossing warden last winter.
The parents conducted a traffic survey between 8.15 a.m. and 9 a.m. one morning and 276 vehicles, 29 of which were heavy lorries, hurtled along the road, and 66 cars and buses pulled into the school yard. Is that safe for children who are encouraged, or made, to walk or cycle because the buses are too expensive? Do we have to wait for injuries or even deaths before something is done?
Is the clamour for action, of which my constituency provides but one example, not now growing so loud that the Government will have to act? I know that the Government have been taking soundings and that the Secretary of State, since he has not had agreement from local education authorities, is proposing to do nothing. That is just not good enough. The working party produced some sensible proposals. The Government then produced a consultative document which, following the working party proposals very closely in the main, improved upon some of the matters of detail.
It is surely right that we should implement a number of those agreed proposals—first, that the statutory walking distance of three miles for those over 8 and two miles for those under 8 should be abolished; second, that local education authorities should have the duty to provide or arrange transport to and from the appointed schools; third, that there

should be a flat-rate charge, regardless of distance from the school or age of the pupil, for all children; fourth, that the flat rate should be a uniform proportion of the adult fare, which would allow for local variations; fifth, that in needy cases there should be relief or a rate rebate; sixth, that handicapped pupils should have special or free arrangements; finally, that in some areas some relief could be obtained by a closer integration of school buses and other public services. I understand that rural services in some parts of the country are being maintained, although subsidised, where an operator has been able to combine his services with profitable school journeys.
None of these suggestions is original or novel. They have been kicked around these past four years. I appreciate that there are difficulties, especially the fact that many parents who now pay nothing for their children's transport would have to start paying. But the wit of man has overcome greater challenges and there should be no incapacity to overcome these, even if it requires a change of Government to do so.
But at the very least all these measures would achieve the merit of fairness. I believe that the experts say that they would bring in no less money than now and so would not be expensive. If the county councils cannot agree, an act of real government is required. The question is whether we have such a real Government.

1.48 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): I am touched by the faith of the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) in his own prospective Government, but since it took the last one many more years to sit on this study than it has taken this Government to try to implement it, his faith may turn out to be misplaced.

Mr. Lawrence: May I remind the hon. Lady that the Hodges Committee reported on 25th October 1973 and that her Government came into office on 28th February 1974?

Miss Jackson: Yes, and six weeks after taking office, we set in motion consultations on this report.
However, the point at issue is the case which the hon. Member has raised. His interest is well known to us. He put his constituents' problems very well, but, as his speech has shown, this is a very difficult and thorny problem to which no solution is readily available. The existing system is riddled with inconsistencies and injustices, based as it is on a walking distance, which is rigidly defined and within which children must walk to school or pay fares and outside which they must be provided with free transport. That situation has become much worse in many ways in recent years.
First, local authorities already have discretionary powers to provide free transport for children who live inside the statutory walking distance. But, because of general financial constraints and the effects of inflation, they have become less willing and certainly less able to use their discretionary powers.
Secondly, bus companies, perennially beset as they are by financial problems, are increasingly, as in the instance which the hon. Gentleman quoted, ceasing to offer cut-rate fares to school children. In other parts of the country they are not even offering the sort of mixed service mentioned by the hon. Gentleman which involves children being late for school but at least being able to travel at cut rate. In some parts, even this option is not open to them. They are treated like other peak-hour travellers. Although there is no educational sense in this, it is not the function of the bus companies to make educational sense. They do not have any obligation under law to give concessionary fares to children and, much though we regret this, we must take account of it.
It is against this background, where both free transport and cut-rate transport are decreasing, that we have tried to find new, more flexible and fairer means of dealing with the problem, based perhaps on a flat rate system locally determined and with relatively generous remission of charges. The response has been, to say the least, discouraging. There has been a scream of protest. There has been wave after wave of letters from those who now benefit from the free system, particularly from those whose children attend denominational schools. It is a protest with which one cannot but sympathise since

parents, facing inflationary costs, do not wish to have an extra cost added to their weekly budget.
But there have been delegations of those who, like the hon. Gentleman, see the other side of the problem. I quote two examples to show that we are aware of the issues. Recently I received a letter from a family with three children, all travelling free, pointing out that the suggested standard charge would increase its living costs by £2.10 a week. The family found it hard to face. But in almost the same week I received a delegation from an area even worse off than that represented by the hon. Gentleman where children are paying full fares and a family with three children is paying £6.30 a week in fares. Under the proposed system the families might be eligible for remission of the flat-rate charge on the ground of financial hardship. Under the present system, the poorest family in the area from which the delegation had come is paying £2.10 a week per child—£6.30 in total—with no hope of getting the charge reduced or any immediate reduction.
Perhaps the most difficult feature of the problem—and the hon. Gentleman rather dismissed this in his closing remarks—is that the associations which we have consulted are worried about the upheaval involved in any change and about the administrative costs as well as the administrative difficulties which would be involved in what would be a more complex scheme. There is no consensus among them about whether to settle for the existing scheme or to change, or how to change.
The hon. Gentleman says that it is up to the Government to make up their minds about what to do, but we have not had all the replies to our consultative document, and I do not feel that we can proceed until we have all the information before us. But even when we have all the replies the fundamental decision whether we should stick with the existing scheme or look for something new will have to be made. If we stick with the existing scheme, we can offer no assistance to the hon. Gentleman's constituents or to many others who, like them, are seriously affected.
If we decide to pursue the idea of new school transport arrangements there will


be a need for further consultations, for complicated administrative arrangements and, last but by no means least, there will be a need for legislation before changes could be introduced. Therefore, it is not likely that we shall be able to help the hon. Gentleman's constituents in the near future.

Mr. Lawrence: Which counties have agreed to the working party's proposals or the consultation document, which have refused both suggestions, and which county or metropolitan authorities have failed to make any response to the consultation document having requested consultation? If the hon. Lady is not in a position to answer now, perhaps she will undertake to answer if I put down a Written Question.

Miss Jackson: There is no need for the hon. Member to put down a Written Question, unless he particularly wishes to

do so; I undertake to write to him about the matter.
First, it is not a matter of authorities having failed to respond. Secondly and simply, I think that the hon. Gentleman will find very little encouragement in the response from any of those who have been formally consulted by us about these proposals.
On that, I am afraid unhopeful, note we must draw the debate to a close. I should not like the hon. Member to imagine that I am anything other than extremely sympathetic about the problems presented by his constituents and many like them and many a great deal worse off, but there is certainly no easy answer and, even more certainly, not likely to be any speedy one.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Two o'clock.